Jump to content

[1.8.1-1.11.2] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.7.2 "Огромный" 22/Mar/2021)


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Zorg said:

Something new! Fairing for Strawman which was also used for POPPY. An extra variant of the Strawman probe core will have this fairing and there is a new dedicated 0.9375m to 1.25m base for POPPY (which we dont have in BDB but still its a cool fairing). Its also available as a variant on the generic 1.25m base (not pictured)

Finally :)

Hopefully @Invaderchaos would make us some Poppies. The 20-inch one is basically there - it's a Solrad with central cylindrical section (I've tried to make a replica with decoupler and two Solrads, but it looks quite bad due to Solrad being slightly larger than 0.3125m).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair warning: due to my own idiocy the while modelling it, the entire Mariner 10 set of parts are overscaled ever so slightly (by about 15%). Since this is still in pre-release I am going to take the opportunity to fix this, this will likely break craft using those parts sorry :(. But it will be better off in the long run.

This will be done within the next few days.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Zorg said:

Fair warning: due to my own idiocy the while modelling it, the entire Mariner 10 set of parts are overscaled ever so slightly (by about 15%). Since this is still in pre-release I am going to take the opportunity to fix this, this will likely break craft using those parts sorry :(. But it will be better off in the long run.

This will be done within the next few days.

1) it wasn't Idiocy it was having to convert from standard to Metric and back over and over.  we get it :D

2) that explains why the Mariner solar panels are honkin huge compared to the earlier ones they are based on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

hi, i put the game in version 1.9.1 and i installed these mods.

iEeeu3q.png

bVKrrXm.png

 Unrtunately as soon as I start the game I get this error message.

0pEM1sy.png

Looking in the logs i got this error .  Unfortunately I'm not very experienced in these things someone could help me

"Warning on PartSubtype Extension on module ModuleB9PartSwitch (moduleID='meshSwitchExtension') on part bluedog.Mariner2.Solar.Antenna: Found more than one matching module
Warning on PartSubtype Extension on module ModuleB9PartSwitch (moduleID='meshSwitchExtension') on part bluedog.Mariner2.Solar.Basic: Found more than one matching module
Warning on PartSubtype Extension on module ModuleB9PartSwitch (moduleID='meshSwitchExtension') on part bluedog.Mariner2.TrackingSolar.Antenna: Found more than one matching module
Warning on PartSubtype OAO1 on module ModuleB9PartSwitch (moduleID='meshSwitchExtension') on part bluedog.OAO.solarUpper: Found more than one matching module
Warning on PartSubtype Extension on module ModuleB9PartSwitch (moduleID='meshSwitchExtension') on part bluedog.Mariner2.TrackingSolar.Basic: Found more than one matching module".

Edited by Messeno
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Messeno said:

 

hi, i put the game in version 1.0 and i installed these mods.

 

 

 Unrtunately as soon as I start the game I get this error message.

 

Looking in the logs i got this error .  Unfortunately I'm not very experienced in these things someone could help me

"Warning on PartSubtype Extension on module ModuleB9PartSwitch (moduleID='meshSwitchExtension') on part bluedog.Mariner2.Solar.Antenna: Found more than one matching module
Warning on PartSubtype Extension on module ModuleB9PartSwitch (moduleID='meshSwitchExtension') on part bluedog.Mariner2.Solar.Basic: Found more than one matching module
Warning on PartSubtype Extension on module ModuleB9PartSwitch (moduleID='meshSwitchExtension') on part bluedog.Mariner2.TrackingSolar.Antenna: Found more than one matching module
Warning on PartSubtype OAO1 on module ModuleB9PartSwitch (moduleID='meshSwitchExtension') on part bluedog.OAO.solarUpper: Found more than one matching module
Warning on PartSubtype Extension on module ModuleB9PartSwitch (moduleID='meshSwitchExtension') on part bluedog.Mariner2.TrackingSolar.Basic: Found more than one matching module".

This is due to an issue with Kopernicus and how we set up some solar panels. Despite the message its quite harmless. It just means certain solar panels that have a size switch will get the same output for both variants instead of different output as we intended. We are looking for a permanent fix in the next update but this is unlikely to actually cause problems in your game.

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

This is due to an issue with Kopernicus and how we set up some solar panels. Despite the message its quite harmless. It just means certain solar panels that have a size switch will get the same output for both variants instead of different output as we intended. We are looking for a permanent fix in the next update but this is unlikely to actually cause problems in your game.

I play in 1.9.1, so it would be enough for me to disable the kopernicus and the problem is solved?

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

I play in 1.9.1, so it would be enough for me to disable the kopernicus and the problem is solved?

Why do you have Kopernicus anyway? I didnt see a planet pack in your mod list. But if you need Kopernicus as a dependency for something else (Custom Asteroids?) removing Kopernicus would cause problems.

You can remove Kop if you like but also like I said, the error message is not as scary as it looks. You can keep Kop, just click ok on the message and keep playing. The problem caused is a very minor one.

Edited by Zorg
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Messeno said:

I play in 1.9.1, so it would be enough for me to disable the kopernicus and the problem is solved?

Do you use a planet-mod like JNSQ? Then you couldn`t remove kopernicus because it is a dependencie. But like Zorg said: This message ist quite harmless and you can ignore it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can also make the following MM patch:

	@PART:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDeployableSolarPanel]]
{
    useKopernicusSolarPanels = False
}
	

This would completely disable Kopernicus solar panel module. Chances are you don't even need it - it is used to support multiple light sources, so you need it only if you use a planet pack that adds multiple stars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought I would work on another Engine for today's BDB history post, where I post the history of some parts in BDB.

well in this case it is the Engine that little is known about but the politics surrounding it created a near monopoly on the Flagship Rocket of NASA.... for 50 years.

This engine was part of two rocket programs, and never flew.    While test engines were burned on the stand, including an all up prototype first stage.  The rocket engine itself never flew

Spoiler

If you haven't guessed we are talking about the North American Aviation Rocketdyne Division, E-1 rocket motor.

Developed as an alternative to the potentially problematic Aerojet General LR87-AJ-3 Kerolox engine   The E-1 was a Scaled up member of the very large LR-79 family.  And as such is directly related to the engines that powered Atlas, Thor, Jupiter, Delta I,II,III and Saturn I.  

Originally funded as a belt and braces "evolved" alternative to the LR87-AJ-3 for Titan I, the E-1 engine would be delayed, and then due to engineering issues cause it's own cancellation from the Titan program.   The issue being a lack of a stable burn cycle in the combustion chamber leading to exploding combustion chambers.  Those same engineering issues, once solved allowed Rocketdyne to actually make the F-1 engine and engineering know-how about how to make big bell rockets have an efficient and sustained burn cycle.

While it was still in the Titan Program, the Army Ballistic Missile Agency took an interest in the E-1 for their Juno V rocket.     The Juno V was to be the next big satellite launcher.  But the Army itself was not really interested in spending money on such a large rocket.   As we all probably know, the Juno V was latter renamed "Clusters Last Stand" err excuse me "Saturn I!"   To keep costs down a single thrust plate would carry 4 E-1 rockets under a cluster of tanks made on the Redstone and Jupiter tooling (no they were not tanks ACTUALLY made of Redstone or Jupiter rockets, just tanks made re-using some of the same tools.)     The First stage would be very cost effective in the mid 1950s when it was planned.  But all the complicated connections and the continual spiral in cost of labor vs cost of materials would make it very expensive to make in the 1970s.    With 4 E-1 engines the Saturn I S-I stage would be very efficient with a good throw weight (a military term for warhead mass flown to x nautical miles away from the launch site) and would be capable of carrying potentially 25,000lb payload to low Earth Orbit.       But again all that changed the day the USAF canceled the E-1 development contract.    As stated above, the US Army (the people who "owned" ABMA) didn't want to put any more money into the still named Juno V as there was no warhead in need of such a massive rocket and no mission requirement for the US Army to launch a giant satellite.    With no funding the E-1 was likely doomed to failure.   Worse, ABMA was working with the not officially offical ARPA (latter DARPA, latter ARPA and now again DARPA,)  At the time ARPA had a small budget to play with for getting Juno V to a usable state... Then the Eisenhower Administration did the unthinkable.   They took Space away from the military and gave it to a re purposed agency NACA... which became NASA.    ABMA would be transferred to NASA as would many other entities.  This would cause a lot of political problems between the military, ARPA (soon to be renamed DARPA) and the new NASA administration.  

In the confusion and chaos at this time, ARPA who still had 10 million dollars to spend offered to fund the continued engineering effort on the E-1 rocket engine for ABMA.    Von Braun, Koelle, and company decided that it was better to have a fully engineered design than one that was mostly engineered to hand to the new NASA administration at the start of the new year.  So instead of funding the E-1 engine for another year (and it had probably 2 or 3 years of additional engineering and testing to g before it would be flight ready.)  Instead, they contacted Rocketdyne (now spun off of NAA) and asked about a slightly up-thrusted S-3D variant for the new Saturn I stage, as a temporary measure until a F-1 powered first stage could be developed!   Rocketdyne looked the gift horse right in the mouth and took the 10million to make the X-1 and quickly there after the H-1 engines.    Yes, you read that right, Koelle and Von Braun were looking at replacing the cluster tank S-I stage with a single tank, single F-1 engine even before NASA took over the Saturn program.

Thus ends the story of the E-1s development.     If the E-1 had be completed, it is doubtful that it would have done anything except make the Saturn I rocket more expensive.  The gain in First stage thrust, while more than capable of launching an all up Apollo CSM stack, would have little use that we can see with hindsight.   However if the E-1's engineering and design had not been undertaken, the Saturn V rocket would have taken much longer to develop due to the much longer development cycle that would have resulted for the F-1 engine and likely the LR87-LH2.   So without the E-1 we might not have made it to the moon before 1970.   Without the E-1 more perilous engineering choices might have been made.    Without the E-1 the Saturn Moon flights might have HAD to be Earth orbit rendezvous instead of the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous that was actually flown.    Instead of the Saturn V we might be seeing Saturn C-2 and Saturn C-3 rockets flying.

The results of the E-1 cancellation can clearly be seen throughout the Apollo program as well as with various other programs:

  • The Engineering staff that was devoted to the development of the E-1 was transferred to developing the J-2 engine
  • The know how of why the E-1 did not work well in early tests directly solved the same problem with the mighty F-1, helping to reduce the F-1's development time.
  • NASA threw Rocketdyne a bone by giving them the J-2 contract.  Their proposal was 2nd best overall but Rocketdyne had the engineering staff ready to take the ball over the finish line... and they were not in a CRASH program like the number one proposal...
  • The Fact that NASA gave Rocketdyne the J-2 contract and supplementally the J-2X contract, lead to the development of the HG-3 which itself was scaled up to become the RS-25/SSME.   

 

It is interesting to consider what would have happened if the E-1 "won" the Titan Engine contract. 

  • Rocketdyne would have to make a Hypergolic fueled E-1 for the latter Titan II.    This alone would lead to a lot of "fun" times for Rocketdyne as they had very limited experience with hypergolic and caustic fuels.
  • The above might have resulted in the cancelation of the F-1 engine by Rocketdyne
  • By the time of the Saturn Flights the E-1 would have grown in thrust even with Kerolox fuel.
  • E-1 would likely have been in production right through the 1980s at-least meaning newer versions would be developed.   After all the USAF/NRO preferred the Titan rocket for it's larger payloads.   Even though Atlas could lift nearly as much the Titan rocket was preferred.
  • An updated S-I stage would likely have been developed assuming additional Saturn Purchases....   with 4 E-1s instead of the larger and more expensive F-1.   Because Engine development and engineering costs are spread across both Titan and Saturn.   Even if Saturn was Kerolox and Titan Hypergolic, the costs would still be less than continued engineering costs for the much larger F-1.
  • Aerojet General would likely see the LR87-LH2 power the upper stages of Saturn, as they would not have been in a CRASH program to convert the LR87 to hypergolic fuel.
  • Aerojet General engines would likely power the Space Shuttle with all it's engines. main LH2 as well as the OMS with the AJ10

 

Now here is the big caveat I have to give with this particular document.   There is very little source material available on the E-1 itself.  Most everything comes from books on the Titan, F-1, Apollo Saturn program, notes from ABMA, ARPA and NASA and in each and every case the E-1 is mostly just a footnote itself in these documents.    There is a lot we don't know about the E-1.   I have tried to string what little info that was available in this document as well as the connections to other major rocket engines (the LR87, the J-2, the X-1/H-1 and the F-1) on how things fit together.  And I pray that my trained conjecture is close to the mark.  

The facts that we actually know about the E-1 are pretty simple

  • ordered as one of two competing engine designs for the Martin Titan I ICBM
  • made by Rocketdyne who had problems early on with combustion chamber explosions
  • scaled up LR79 with changes to the bell shape to make more efficient at lower altitude
  • Even though it was tested on a Titan I first stage, it was deleted from the Titan I program prior to actual Titan I prototype launches
  • De-funded in 1959 by ABMA/ARPA in lieu of the X-1/H-1 program to make Juno V easier to present to NASA and we know this was a decision by Koelle with the full support of Von Braun
  • There is not a good photo of an all up E-1.  There is a distant shot of one being tested under a Titan I first stage, and there are several photographs of a Battleship bell/combustion chamber (with none of the turbopumps other associated hardware.)

 

All in all, the E-1 engine represents one of the more interesting "WHAT IF" changes that are included in BDB.   If you haven't flown a Saturn I or IB with the E-1 you don't know what you are missing (you only need 4 of them in the outer ring on the S-I engine plate)

I am happy and thankful that this engine is in BDB.

 

Edited by Pappystein
Spoilered most of the Wall o Text
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, could somebody help me with a tweakscale patch that would allow me to tweak the scale of the Apollo LEM ascent stage, the LEM descent stage and the Apollo command module. The rest of the Apollo/Saturn v has the ability to tweak the scale but these 3 don't. Help would be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, si2504 said:

Hi, could somebody help me with a tweakscale patch that would allow me to tweak the scale of the Apollo LEM ascent stage, the LEM descent stage and the Apollo command module. The rest of the Apollo/Saturn v has the ability to tweak the scale but these 3 don't. Help would be appreciated.

@PART[bluedog_Gemini*|bluedog_Peacekeeper_*|bluedog_Athena_*|bluedog_LDC_*|bluedog_CELV_*|bluedog_DCSS_Interstage|bluedog_Thor*|bluedog_Ablestar*|bluedog_Juno*|bluedog_DCSS_PayloadAdapter*|bluedog_ATDA*|bluedog_centaur*|bluedog_Redstone*|bluedog_DeltaIV*|bluedog_saturn*|bluedog_Saturn*|bluedog_MOL*|bluedog_Gemini_*|bluedog_Shuguang_*|bluedog_Hexagon_*|bluedog_Minotaur_*]:NEEDS[TweakScale]:FOR[Bluedog_DB] {
	%MODULE[TweakScale]
	{
		type = stack
		defaultScale = 2.5
	}
}

This is a config I use. Insert the partnames (look at the part-configs) of the parts you want, separated by '|' oder ','. The name of the config does no matter. I named it BDBTweakscale.cfg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having consistent problems with starting the actual game after the "Loading Asset Bundle Definitions" part of the load screen. It will get stuck on a part, so I'll delete it, restart, wait another 10 mins for the rest of my mods to load, then it will just get stuck on another.

KSP version 1.10

The parts it wouldn't load are:

- bluedog_castorSRB (Under OldParts/EarlyRockets)

- bluedog_Agena_AInterstage

- bluedog_Apollo_Block2LES

I gave up after this. There are probably other parts that won't load but I simply do not have the time to repeat this process again and again as it takes 10 mins just to get to the point of finding the next problem part. I suspect a mod conflict, but I've ran BDB when last I played over a year ago with dozens of other mods and did not have any issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FTV-1602, aka Corona-99, aka WORD SCRAMBLE, aka "Frankensat"

Everyone launched a "quick-science-grab" satellite at least once. You want to open next tech tree node, but you lack some science points. Solution? Put as much science stuff as you can on a satellite, launch it, collect science, problem solved. We all did (and continue to do) that during our career plays.

This is exactly what United States Air Force did (or at least tried to...) at the morning of 2 September 1965.

With a quite Kerbal result.

1hIUD9v.png

u4qVVjD.png

Wdz8SGW.png

koTUmQo.png

VW1nZcV.png

ho6qml0.png

9HvyFUX.png

B6gOmO1.png

Taz3Ocv.png

Unfortunately, my "replica" did not achieve orbit due to being too heavy for 2.5x KSRSS (putting it on TAT-Agena does the trick) and crashed in Antarctic.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Messeno said:

I finally solved the various problems with the kopernicus, but while I load the craft already made by the mod I get this error, ideas on how to solve?

missing modules (NOT MISSING PARTS) are in the most time no problem. For example: If you had a life support mod before that added functions to existing parts but you didn´t have parts from the mod on the craft, the craft will load. I had this many times in the past.
 

so: you can most likely ignore this warning when only a module is named and when you have loaded it: just save it again and the warning will not pop up again for this craft.

Edited by JoeSheridan
Link to post
Share on other sites

First off I want to take a minute to thank all the people who are simulating history with KSP.   While I am a published historian, that really isn't my cup of tea (I rather like making my own things instead of historically accurate flights.... generally)  

But several of you, have made amazing rockets based on real life and provided a lot of amazing screenshots of your flights.     I really love how things get explained in them, and sometimes how funny anecdotes result from the particular launch.   

So thank you all who are posting the historical flights.     Also thank you all to who post the what if and completely off the rails flights.   You all have a great place here in this KSP forum.

While I will be slowing down my "Historical" posts now that I am recovered from COVID and going back to work.  I will still post them from time to time. 

I was working on a post for yesterday but it became rather long and I got distracted by some suggested edits I was also working on for Friznits wiki (enough so that I had to pull a ticket on both the Wiki and the BDB Githubs.)

 

==================================================================================================

If you took one engine family out of the US rocket program, what single family’s removal would utterly emasculate the US rocket program from the 1950s to the 1990s?

Spoiler

Answer:  The LR79 Family.

Please note that while there are many civilian engine names the following engines are known for, I group them as much as possible by military (that is LR for liquid Rocket) designations to keep things a little easier, I hope, to follow.

The North American Aviation Rocketdyne Division (henceforth Rocketdyne) started after the 2nd World War by developing a more reliable version of the German V-2 Rocket engine.   Through several iterations named A-5, A-6, A-7 it would power the Redstone short-ranged Ballistic missile, the Jupiter-A Test rocket, the Jupiter-C sounding rocket, the Juno-I Satellite launcher, and of-course the Mercury Redstone MR-1 through MR-8 flights.

From this engine, a whole host of engines were developed, mostly for the Navajo cruise missile.   Initially with one engine, then 2 and finally 3 engines grouped together.  The Navajo engine is where the LR79 family gets it’s start.  

If you take the combustion chamber and bell from one of the Navajo engines and scale it up approximately 33% you get the original S-3 engine, the first of the LR79 engine family.   Now the S-3 in this form was not efficient and had some bad combustion issues.   Changes to the combustion chamber shape solved the burn issues in the combustion chamber and changing from a conic nozzle to a Rao* designed bell shape would dramatically improve the efficiency and performance of the engine.  Once it was determined changing the shape of the exit nozzle could change how the rocket engine behaved, Rocketdyne had unlocked a lot of potential.

The first variant of the LR79 we should mention is an export.   The Rolls Royce RZ.2.    The rights to the S-3/LR79 engine design were acquired by Rolls Royce early in the development of the LR79 for the Jupiter rocket.   It was so early on that the actually produced RZ.2 for the Blue Streak IRBM missile still had the slab-sided conic nozzles of the early production S-3 rocket prototypes and not the final Rao programmed bell.    Given the verbiage of the technology transfer contract, it is likely that production Blue Streak would have flown with a more updated version of the RZ.2 with a Rao bell which would have improved it’s potential by as much as 15%.

The second LR79 and really the first production variant for the original end-user is the S-3D, for use on the Jupiter IRBM.   Unlike the Bluestreak which was a rather large missile, the Jupiter was small enough to only require one LR79 on board.      The LR79 (S-3D) in this case would have it’s turbopump exhaust used for roll control by a pretty significant pipe extension out the side of the rocket.   Any sort of jet pipe extension like this results in a net reduction in thrust, but this was almost an unknown phenomenon at the time in question and while a reduced thrust from this extension was noticed it was not enough to cancel the use of the extension and the turbopump exhaust would be used for roll control on all Jupiter and Juno II launches.

About the same time while the soon to be BAC was developing Bluestreak, and Army Ballistic Missile Agency was developing Jupiter, the USAF was developing, with Consolidated Vultee (Convair) the Atlas.   Atlas would use 2 modified LR79 engines in a 2 booster in conjunction with 1 sustainer and two trim/roll control motors, in it’s production form.  However initially using the designation B-2C, the Atlas prototypes flew with just two booster engines.   Once combined with the S-4*** upper stage engine as a large bell sustainer the engine name for Atlas would change to MA-2.  The Boosters would be nearly conical versions of the LR79 designated the LR89.   The LR89 is optimized for maximum thrust at sea level and forget about efficiency.   Where Atlas shines however is in the over-all efficiency of the Rocket pound for pound and early in the flight, when the acceleration approached 4 times for force of gravity the skirt containing the two LR89s would be jettisoned leaving just the LR105 big Rao bell engine.  The LR105, with roll and trim control by two small LR101 engines, would provide enough acceleration and thrust to get the significantly lightened Atlas space frame down-range to either place an object in orbit or drop a nuclear warhead on target.   As the LR89s and LR-105s were upgraded, the Atlas engine name changed from MA-2 to MA-3, and finally one iteration or another of MA-5.    Of all the original LR79 variants the Atlas engines would serve the longest**, they are by no means the last of the LR79 variants.

Thor was the next rocket built with an LR79 variant.  In fact, the S-3D of the Jupiter and the LR79 of Thor are identical except with how the turbopump exhaust is handled.   The USAF choose to rely on a separate trim/roll control rocket known as the LR101 for it’s first-generation ballistic missiles.   The LR101s would equip all but the last few balloon tanked Atlases and every Thor based rocket to ever fly, including the Delta III.   This is important for Thor because it means the turbopump exhaust is now being used to directly generate thrust and nothing else.  This simplified Thor in relationship to the Jupiter and made it more reliable.  While Jupiter and Thor were designed for significantly different roles, Jupiter for the Army and Navy and Thor for the USAF, in the end only the USAF would operate Thor AND Jupiter.   Here the differences in design philosophy, the Thor with it’s separate control engine system vs the Jupiter with it’s integrated control turbopump, would complicate and result in a low-reliability rate in service (comparatively) for Jupiter vs Thor.  Basically, by having separate main engine and control systems the Thor was easier to maintain and therefore easier to keep at a reliable state.   Much of the control components on Thor were also used on Atlas in a slightly modified form.   Thor and Atlas had more in common with each other than they did with Jupiter.   Now Jupiter did provide an important role for the USAF prior to it’s withdrawal from service but that role was that of spoiler and threat leading to political negotiations that would continue on through today’s strategic weapons treaties.    During the time Jupiter was in service several “Juno” series of rockets ranging from Juno II all the way to the Juno IVB would be proposed by the Army Ballistic Missile Agency.   A thin vale on Von Braun’s purpose since he got into rocketry…. Space exploration.

It is at this juncture that the USAF started looking for a 2nd Ballistic missile as a backup and potential replacement for Atlas.  Here Rocketdyne took the LR79, and realizing that they needed significantly more thrust and it would not be needed at high altitude developed the giant, by comparison to other LR79 variants, E-1.  This has already be covered in a previous post so I won’t delve further except to say that without the E-1, the technology developed for it and it’s cancelation, the latter Thor engines would not exist.

Back to the standard-sized LR79 variants, as we know from the E-1 post previously, when faced with it’s near future absorption by NASA the ABMA had to choose between a 2 or 3-year development cycle on the E-1 engine or an alternative near CRASH program to upgrade the LR79.    Given the LR79 had shown it was relatively easy to upgrade into various improved engines it was decided to replace the E-1 on a 2 for 1 basis with an improved LR79.    Rocketdyne took the 10 million dollars offered by ABMA/ARPA in 1959 to uprate the LR79 to a 200,000lbf thrust level.   Rocketdyne first started the X-1 program to develop technology for this new engine.   While this was a rush order, the X-1 program would allow technology to be folded back into the new LR79 variant that would actually be produced.    The X-1 would be tested up to 880kn or 200,000lbf approximately.   The production version, known as H-1 would go through two series of prototypes (the A and B prototype engines and the C and D production engines.)   The only difference between the A and B as well as the C and D was how the engine was mounted to the thrust structure, was it fixed or on a single plane gimbal, and how the turbopump exhaust was handled.       The H-1 would of course power the Saturn I and the Saturn IB rockets to orbit.   It would also… with some minor changes to the Turbopump exhaust and the engine bell, power the latter Thor/Delta variants!

So jumping back to Thor and Delta Rockets, we now have 8 different engines to power these McDonnell or McDonnell Douglas rockets.    The LR79, the MB-3, the MB-3-3, the MB-3-Pres-Mod, the RS-27 (H-1) the RS-27A, B and C (further H-1 Modifications for Delta.)    All of these engines are directly connected to the original LR79 for the Original Thor.   But it gets even crazier when you realize that Atlas would also be affected by these upgrades…

Atlas, in it’s final years as a stage and a half Rocket would gain the RS-56-OSA and RS-56-OBA engines.   The OBA is a repackaged H-1 engine designed to work in lieu of the LR89 booster engine.  As the engine is designed to be jettisoned early in flight it has a low altitude optimized bell.   The RS-56-OSA is not an LR79 derivative but rather a further improved LR105 utilizing some technology transfer from the X-1 program.    It is interesting that the H-1, with a different bell, was proposed as a replacement for the LR105 as early as 1961 for stretched Atlas versions… yet when the H-1 finally appeared on Atlas… it was to replace the LR89 booster engines.

 

Here ends the short history on the LR79 family and why it was so important to US rocket programs.

LR79 engines as they are in BDB (I only use RealNames):

·         LR79 Jupiter and Thor Main engine includes upgrades to to both Jupiter and Thor engines as well as the H-1(RS-27) replacement engine for latter Thor/Deltas

·         S-3B Vernier (for the Jupiter)

·         LR89 (Atlas Booster) including upgrades to the H-1 derived RS56-OBA

·         H1C (includes one engine upgrade)

·         H1D (again includes on engine upgrade)

·         H2 (for the early stretched "Atlas F" proposal)  In BDB Extras

 

*Rao as in aerospace engineer D.Sc. Gadicharla V R Rao born in India and after moving to the United States and getting a doctorate in Aerospace engineering in 1948, successfully developed the math computations to customize the shape of the engine nozzle for thrust or efficiency, vs the then standard Conic nozzle shape for hot gas exhaust.   He did most of his math on the early mainframe computer at Rocketdyne in 1955.   D.Sc. Rao would publish many formulae on optimal thrust for a given combustion chamber size often quoted as “Rao Optimum Thrust Method.”   D.Sc Rao is one of the unsung heros of the Rocket age who is often confused with Gustaf de Laval.    Gustaf de Laval is responsible for the pinch between the combustion chamber and the nozzle.   Rao is responsible for the bell shape of the Nozzle itself and the calculations for how to make it most advantageous in shape.  D.Sc Rao’s work is still used today in modern rocket engine calculations long after his passing.

 

**The LR89 engine flew from 6/11/1957 until 4/25/1997 or almost 40 years  The latter RS27 for Delta is a 3rd generation LR79, and the RS56 for Atlas II is almost a 4th generation LR79 where as the LR89 was a 2nd generation LR79.  So while the engines are all derived from the original LR79 they are not all of the same generation or "time in service."

*** the Rocketdyne S-4 (designated as LR105 in USAF Nomenclature) was originally developed as a 2nd stage engine for an un-named and un-built rocket proposal.   It too is a derivative of the Navajo engines but it significantly diverts away from how the LR79 was built in both shape and and combustion chamber construction.   The S-4 was really the first test of the Rao bell shapes and it was not quite correct initially.   This was all fixed by the time the production LR105-NA-5 flew.       Had the E-1 been chosen for Titan a S-4 derivative would have flown on the 2nd stage.   It would likely be slightly bigger than the LR105 on the Atlas.

 

Edited by Pappystein
Spoilered most of the Wall o Text
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

First off I want to take a minute to thank all the people who are simulating history with KSP.   While I am a published historian, that really isn't my cup of tea (I rather like making my own things instead of historically accurate flights.... generally)  

But several of you, have made amazing rockets based on real life and provided a lot of amazing screenshots of your flights.     I really love how things get explained in them, and sometimes how funny anecdotes result from the particular launch.   

So thank you all who are posting the historical flights.     Also thank you all to who post the what if and completely off the rails flights.   You all have a great place here in this KSP forum.

While I will be slowing down my "Historical" posts now that I am recovered from COVID and going back to work.  I will still post them from time to time. 

I was working on a post for yesterday but it became rather long and I got distracted by some suggested edits I was also working on for Friznits wiki (enough so that I had to pull a ticket on both the Wiki and the BDB Githubs.)

 

==================================================================================================

If you took one engine family out of the US rocket program, what single family’s removal would utterly emasculate the US rocket program from the 1950s to the 1990s?

Answer:  The LR79 Family.

Please note that while there are many civilian engine names the following engines are known for, I group them as much as possible by military (that is LR for liquid Rocket) designations to keep things a little easier, I hope, to follow.

The North American Aviation Rocketdyne Division (henceforth Rocketdyne) started after the 2nd World War by developing a more reliable version of the German V-2 Rocket engine.   Through several iterations named A-5, A-6, A-7 it would power the Redstone short-ranged Ballistic missile, the Jupiter-A Test rocket, the Jupiter-C sounding rocket, the Juno-I Satellite launcher, and of-course the Mercury Redstone MR-1 through MR-8 flights.

From this engine, a whole host of engines were developed, mostly for the Navajo cruise missile.   Initially with one engine, then 2 and finally 3 engines grouped together.  The Navajo engine is where the LR79 family gets it’s start.  

If you take the combustion chamber and bell from one of the Navajo engines and scale it up approximately 33% you get the original S-3 engine, the first of the LR79 engine family.   Now the S-3 in this form was not efficient and had some bad combustion issues.   Changes to the combustion chamber shape solved the burn issues in the combustion chamber and changing from a conic nozzle to a Rao* designed bell shape would dramatically improve the efficiency and performance of the engine.  Once it was determined changing the shape of the exit nozzle could change how the rocket engine behaved, Rocketdyne had unlocked a lot of potential.

The first variant of the LR79 we should mention is an export.   The Rolls Royce RZ.2.    The rights to the S-3/LR79 engine design were acquired by Rolls Royce early in the development of the LR79 for the Jupiter rocket.   It was so early on that the actually produced RZ.2 for the Blue Streak IRBM missile still had the slab-sided conic nozzles of the early production S-3 rocket prototypes and not the final Rao programmed bell.    Given the verbiage of the technology transfer contract, it is likely that production Blue Streak would have flown with a more updated version of the RZ.2 with a Rao bell which would have improved it’s potential by as much as 15%.

The second LR79 and really the first production variant for the original end-user is the S-3D, for use on the Jupiter IRBM.   Unlike the Bluestreak which was a rather large missile, the Jupiter was small enough to only require one LR79 on board.      The LR79 (S-3D) in this case would have it’s turbopump exhaust used for roll control by a pretty significant pipe extension out the side of the rocket.   Any sort of jet pipe extension like this results in a net reduction in thrust, but this was almost an unknown phenomenon at the time in question and while a reduced thrust from this extension was noticed it was not enough to cancel the use of the extension and the turbopump exhaust would be used for roll control on all Jupiter and Juno II launches.

About the same time while the soon to be BAC was developing Bluestreak, and Army Ballistic Missile Agency was developing Jupiter, the USAF was developing, with Consolidated Vultee (Convair) the Atlas.   Atlas would use 2 modified LR79 engines in a 2 booster in conjunction with 1 sustainer and two trim/roll control motors, in it’s production form.  However initially using the designation B-2C, the Atlas prototypes flew with just two booster engines.   Once combined with the S-4*** upper stage engine as a large bell sustainer the engine name for Atlas would change to MA-2.  The Boosters would be nearly conical versions of the LR79 designated the LR89.   The LR89 is optimized for maximum thrust at sea level and forget about efficiency.   Where Atlas shines however is in the over-all efficiency of the Rocket pound for pound and early in the flight, when the acceleration approached 4 times for force of gravity the skirt containing the two LR89s would be jettisoned leaving just the LR105 big Rao bell engine.  The LR105, with roll and trim control by two small LR101 engines, would provide enough acceleration and thrust to get the significantly lightened Atlas space frame down-range to either place an object in orbit or drop a nuclear warhead on target.   As the LR89s and LR-105s were upgraded, the Atlas engine name changed from MA-2 to MA-3, and finally one iteration or another of MA-5.    Of all the original LR79 variants the Atlas engines would serve the longest**, they are by no means the last of the LR79 variants.

Thor was the next rocket built with an LR79 variant.  In fact, the S-3D of the Jupiter and the LR79 of Thor are identical except with how the turbopump exhaust is handled.   The USAF choose to rely on a separate trim/roll control rocket known as the LR101 for it’s first-generation ballistic missiles.   The LR101s would equip all but the last few balloon tanked Atlases and every Thor based rocket to ever fly, including the Delta III.   This is important for Thor because it means the turbopump exhaust is now being used to directly generate thrust and nothing else.  This simplified Thor in relationship to the Jupiter and made it more reliable.  While Jupiter and Thor were designed for significantly different roles, Jupiter for the Army and Navy and Thor for the USAF, in the end only the USAF would operate Thor AND Jupiter.   Here the differences in design philosophy, the Thor with it’s separate control engine system vs the Jupiter with it’s integrated control turbopump, would complicate and result in a low-reliability rate in service (comparatively) for Jupiter vs Thor.  Basically, by having separate main engine and control systems the Thor was easier to maintain and therefore easier to keep at a reliable state.   Much of the control components on Thor were also used on Atlas in a slightly modified form.   Thor and Atlas had more in common with each other than they did with Jupiter.   Now Jupiter did provide an important role for the USAF prior to it’s withdrawal from service but that role was that of spoiler and threat leading to political negotiations that would continue on through today’s strategic weapons treaties.    During the time Jupiter was in service several “Juno” series of rockets ranging from Juno II all the way to the Juno IVB would be proposed by the Army Ballistic Missile Agency.   A thin vale on Von Braun’s purpose since he got into rocketry…. Space exploration.

It is at this juncture that the USAF started looking for a 2nd Ballistic missile as a backup and potential replacement for Atlas.  Here Rocketdyne took the LR79, and realizing that they needed significantly more thrust and it would not be needed at high altitude developed the giant, by comparison to other LR79 variants, E-1.  This has already be covered in a previous post so I won’t delve further except to say that without the E-1, the technology developed for it and it’s cancelation, the latter Thor engines would not exist.

Back to the standard-sized LR79 variants, as we know from the E-1 post previously, when faced with it’s near future absorption by NASA the ABMA had to choose between a 2 or 3-year development cycle on the E-1 engine or an alternative near CRASH program to upgrade the LR79.    Given the LR79 had shown it was relatively easy to upgrade into various improved engines it was decided to replace the E-1 on a 2 for 1 basis with an improved LR79.    Rocketdyne took the 10 million dollars offered by ABMA/ARPA in 1959 to uprate the LR79 to a 200,000lbf thrust level.   Rocketdyne first started the X-1 program to develop technology for this new engine.   While this was a rush order, the X-1 program would allow technology to be folded back into the new LR79 variant that would actually be produced.    The X-1 would be tested up to 880kn or 200,000lbf approximately.   The production version, known as H-1 would go through two series of prototypes (the A and B prototype engines and the C and D production engines.)   The only difference between the A and B as well as the C and D was how the engine was mounted to the thrust structure, was it fixed or on a single plane gimbal, and how the turbopump exhaust was handled.       The H-1 would of course power the Saturn I and the Saturn IB rockets to orbit.   It would also… with some minor changes to the Turbopump exhaust and the engine bell, power the latter Thor/Delta variants!

So jumping back to Thor and Delta Rockets, we now have 8 different engines to power these McDonnell or McDonnell Douglas rockets.    The LR79, the MB-3, the MB-3-3, the MB-3-Pres-Mod, the RS-27 (H-1) the RS-27A, B and C (further H-1 Modifications for Delta.)    All of these engines are directly connected to the original LR79 for the Original Thor.   But it gets even crazier when you realize that Atlas would also be affected by these upgrades…

Atlas, in it’s final years as a stage and a half Rocket would gain the RS-56-OSA and RS-56-OBA engines.   The OBA is a repackaged H-1 engine designed to work in lieu of the LR89 booster engine.  As the engine is designed to be jettisoned early in flight it has a low altitude optimized bell.   The RS-56-OSA is not an LR79 derivative but rather a further improved LR105 utilizing some technology transfer from the X-1 program.    It is interesting that the H-1, with a different bell, was proposed as a replacement for the LR105 as early as 1961 for stretched Atlas versions… yet when the H-1 finally appeared on Atlas… it was to replace the LR89 booster engines.

 

Here ends the short history on the LR79 family and why it was so important to US rocket programs.

LR79 engines as they are in BDB (I only use RealNames):

·         LR79 Jupiter and Thor Main engine includes upgrades to to both Jupiter and Thor engines as well as the H-1(RS-27) replacement engine for latter Thor/Deltas

·         S-3B Vernier (for the Jupiter)

·         LR89 (Atlas Booster) including upgrades to the H-1 derived RS56-OBA

·         H1C (includes one engine upgrade)

·         H1D (again includes on engine upgrade)

·         H2 (for the early stretched "Atlas F" proposal)  In BDB Extras

 

*Rao as in aerospace engineer D.Sc. Gadicharla V R Rao born in India and after moving to the United States and getting a doctorate in Aerospace engineering in 1948, successfully developed the math computations to customize the shape of the engine nozzle for thrust or efficiency, vs the then standard Conic nozzle shape for hot gas exhaust.   He did most of his math on the early mainframe computer at Rocketdyne in 1955.   D.Sc. Rao would publish many formulae on optimal thrust for a given combustion chamber size often quoted as “Rao Optimum Thrust Method.”   D.Sc Rao is one of the unsung heros of the Rocket age who is often confused with Gustaf de Laval.    Gustaf de Laval is responsible for the pinch between the combustion chamber and the nozzle.   Rao is responsible for the bell shape of the Nozzle itself and the calculations for how to make it most advantageous in shape.  D.Sc Rao’s work is still used today in modern rocket engine calculations long after his passing.

 

**The LR89 engine flew from 6/11/1957 until 4/25/1997 or almost 40 years  The latter RS27 for Delta is a 3rd generation LR79, and the RS56 for Atlas II is almost a 4th generation LR79 where as the LR89 was a 2nd generation LR79.  So while the engines are all derived from the original LR79 they are not all of the same generation or "time in service."

*** the Rocketdyne S-4 (designated as LR105 in USAF Nomenclature) was originally developed as a 2nd stage engine for an un-named and un-built rocket proposal.   It too is a derivative of the Navajo engines but it significantly diverts away from how the LR79 was built in both shape and and combustion chamber construction.   The S-4 was really the first test of the Rao bell shapes and it was not quite correct initially.   This was all fixed by the time the production LR105-NA-5 flew.       Had the E-1 been chosen for Titan a S-4 derivative would have flown on the 2nd stage.   It would likely be slightly bigger than the LR105 on the Atlas.

How do you know so much?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, computercat04 said:

How do you know so much?

I read, I process and I try to see how one thing fits with the next.    I use critical and "outside the box" thinking plus logic, to self analyze anything I read.   None of these things are taught in any school I have heard of.    In fact it is a large reason why I don't have a degree in Aerospace or Electronic Engineering of one form or another.... or for that matter a 4 year degree at all. 

Anything else I would say sounds like bragging.  So instead, let me give you an example of how I come up with my data points.

Engineering documents can be very confusing...  If you ignore all the math formulas the document can either be a waste of time or a treasure trove of data.   The example I am going to use is the Titan CT3 and Titan IV.   They had new engines that few documents seem to want to talk about.   In fact I have found no all up comparison (or complete data set) for the AJ-11A engines on the CT3 and Titan IV Rockets.     I used 4 sets of documents to come up with my proposed suggestions for changes to both BDB and the Wiki that put requests in for yesterday.    One such document that I read last week talked about the KH-10 and the Titan IIIM and how the man rating hardware on the LR87-AJ-11 would add about 380kg of mass to the first stage and a smaller mass to the 2nd stage for the LR91.  But that the improvements in thrust vs the then production standard AJ-9 would offset the extra mass.    Then read a document on Titan IV stating that the LR87-AJ-11A for Titan IV and CT3 did not have the man rating hardware and it was designed out of the appropriate stages.     Knowing that the man rating hardware was used in two ways on Titan rockets can be gleaned from all the NASA Gemini Titan LV documents.  They lowered the pressure in the Turbo-pumps(which lowers thrust) and added many built in test features.    So the differences between the LR87-AJ-11 used on all the Titan 23, 24, 33 and 34 rockets EXCEPT 23G, and the LR87-AJ-11A used on Commercial Titan 3 and Titan IV, are the 11A has higher thrust and the entire stage weighs less because the built in test equipment was either removed or lighter replacements added in (new technology.)   That makes the -11A engine a significant upgrade over the -11 even though the thrust is only about 10% more.   It is the mass + the thrust increase that make it significant.   I combined 4 sets of documents to come up with these facts and figures.   ONE was a NASA document about the Titan IIIM as well as the proposed Titan IIIE.   Another was a series of 3 documents on man-rating the Titan II to become the GLV and the third was a document from Martin Marietta talking about the proposed Titan IV as well as another document from the same source on the Commercial Titan 3 (CT3.)         You will notice, that I have to make several assumptions here.   My data on man rating the engines comes from the AJ-5 to AJ-7 program.  That was how NASA man rated the original Gemini Titan II LV.   The man rating hardware in the early Titan III(2x) family massed 380kg in the first stage.   DID it mass 380kg at the end of the Titan III 2x/3x program?   Sadly we have to ASSUME so since no document states the stages got lighter as they "improved production"... but it is the first assumption.    Now we have to ignore most of the data on the Titan CT3 because it's first stage was quoted as a "Titan IIIM first stage"  when it really wasn't.  Most the data on this stage just quotes the same info as the original Titan 24B data for the stage (including the base AJ-11 engine!)     So we really can't do a stage mass vs stage mass calculation because every public source seems to use Titan 24B data... and quote the wrong engine version.   Titan CT3's first stage was built to Titan IV standards, but with smaller tanks (and a shorter length similar to the earlier IIIM tanks.)     

As the Titan IV first stage is stretched with more fuel... again we can't do a mass vs mass calculation worth mentioning.  So I have a known-ish thrust gain of around 10% and a POSSIBLE mass reduction of 380kg in the first stage (that is about 840lbs for those of you trying to think in the Standard scale.)    I have to make the assumptions that these changes are accurate sadly.  

Mind you none of this takes into account the Transistorization and later integrated circuits being used in the Avionics.     That could be a further mass reduction.   And something to consider.

 

Hope that answers your question and does not sound like Bragging.    I have gifts and talents.   But each and every one of you do as well.   Don't think I am special.  I just have my talents, just like you do.    Your talents make you equally special.   And no I am not saying that to be humble.  Just to point out that EACH of us has something that separates us from the REST of use... no matter how much we might try to hid it.    For example, I may be able to make a 3d model in a CAD program.  But I have no real capability at making 3d models for games like KSP.   And don't ask about my ability to Texture.   Cobaltwolf looked at my crude attempts and thankfully did not laugh in my face (he is too upstanding of a guy to do so mind you!)   But he can make 3D art that is beautiful and actually looks like it was made in the real world.  I can not and I have spent a lot of hours learning and trying...  well failing.

 

PS now you know I am going to have to do a document or series of documents on the Titan family.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Pappystein said:

I read, I process and I try to see how one thing fits with the next.    I use critical and "outside the box" thinking plus logic, to self analyze anything I read.   None of these things are taught in any school I have heard of.    In fact it is a large reason why I don't have a degree in Aerospace or Electronic Engineering of one form or another.... or for that matter a 4 year degree at all. 

Anything else I would say sounds like bragging.  So instead, let me give you an example of how I come up with my data points.

Engineering documents can be very confusing...  If you ignore all the math formulas the document can either be a waste of time or a treasure trove of data.   The example I am going to use is the Titan CT3 and Titan IV.   They had new engines that few documents seem to want to talk about.   In fact I have found no all up comparison (or complete data set) for the AJ-11A engines on the CT3 and Titan IV Rockets.     I used 4 sets of documents to come up with my proposed suggestions for changes to both BDB and the Wiki that put requests in for yesterday.    One such document that I read last week talked about the KH-10 and the Titan IIIM and how the man rating hardware on the LR87-AJ-11 would add about 380kg of mass to the first stage and a smaller mass to the 2nd stage for the LR91.  But that the improvements in thrust vs the then production standard AJ-9 would offset the extra mass.    Then read a document on Titan IV stating that the LR87-AJ-11A for Titan IV and CT3 did not have the man rating hardware and it was designed out of the appropriate stages.     Knowing that the man rating hardware was used in two ways on Titan rockets can be gleaned from all the NASA Gemini Titan LV documents.  They lowered the pressure in the Turbo-pumps(which lowers thrust) and added many built in test features.    So the differences between the LR87-AJ-11 used on all the Titan 23, 24, 33 and 34 rockets EXCEPT 23G, and the LR87-AJ-11A used on Commercial Titan 3 and Titan IV, are the 11A has higher thrust and the entire stage weighs less because the built in test equipment was either removed or lighter replacements added in (new technology.)   That makes the -11A engine a significant upgrade over the -11 even though the thrust is only about 10% more.   It is the mass + the thrust increase that make it significant.   I combined 4 sets of documents to come up with these facts and figures.   ONE was a NASA document about the Titan IIIM as well as the proposed Titan IIIE.   Another was a series of 3 documents on man-rating the Titan II to become the GLV and the third was a document from Martin Marietta talking about the proposed Titan IV as well as another document from the same source on the Commercial Titan 3 (CT3.)         You will notice, that I have to make several assumptions here.   My data on man rating the engines comes from the AJ-5 to AJ-7 program.  That was how NASA man rated the original Gemini Titan II LV.   The man rating hardware in the early Titan III(2x) family massed 380kg in the first stage.   DID it mass 380kg at the end of the Titan III 2x/3x program?   Sadly we have to ASSUME so since no document states the stages got lighter as they "improved production"... but it is the first assumption.    Now we have to ignore most of the data on the Titan CT3 because it's first stage was quoted as a "Titan IIIM first stage"  when it really wasn't.  Most the data on this stage just quotes the same info as the original Titan 24B data for the stage (including the base AJ-11 engine!)     So we really can't do a stage mass vs stage mass calculation because every public source seems to use Titan 24B data... and quote the wrong engine version.   Titan CT3's first stage was built to Titan IV standards, but with smaller tanks (and a shorter length similar to the earlier IIIM tanks.)     

As the Titan IV first stage is stretched with more fuel... again we can't do a mass vs mass calculation worth mentioning.  So I have a known-ish thrust gain of around 10% and a POSSIBLE mass reduction of 380kg in the first stage (that is about 840lbs for those of you trying to think in the Standard scale.)    I have to make the assumptions that these changes are accurate sadly.  

Mind you none of this takes into account the Transistorization and later integrated circuits being used in the Avionics.     That could be a further mass reduction.   And something to consider.

 

Hope that answers your question and does not sound like Bragging.    I have gifts and talents.   But each and every one of you do as well.   Don't think I am special.  I just have my talents, just like you do.    Your talents make you equally special.   And no I am not saying that to be humble.  Just to point out that EACH of us has something that separates us from the REST of use... no matter how much we might try to hid it.    For example, I may be able to make a 3d model in a CAD program.  But I have no real capability at making 3d models for games like KSP.   And don't ask about my ability to Texture.   Cobaltwolf looked at my crude attempts and thankfully did not laugh in my face (he is too upstanding of a guy to do so mind you!)   But he can make 3D art that is beautiful and actually looks like it was made in the real world.  I can not and I have spent a lot of hours learning and trying...  well failing.

 

PS now you know I am going to have to do a document or series of documents on the Titan family.

Damn I love reading these walls of text.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know if it has been reported already (didn't see a specific report):

The Kane-11-FBL Docking Floodlight & Kane-11-LIB EVA Floodlight stooped working for me with the latest update. They neither emit light nor do the animations work for me currently.

(Game and mod up to date)

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.

×
×
  • Create New...