[1.12.5] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.13.0 "Забытый" 13/Aug/2023)

[SpacedInvader]

3 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

The Redstone is a fairly anemic rocket, so I'm not surprised you're having trouble getting a useable upper stage + payload into orbit. Maybe try replacing it, or at least the engines?

That's what took me up to the Atlas orginally and the new issue of having too much power / dV for the payload. Is there a middle ground between the two that I'm just missing due to lack of knowledge? I guess I could swap out the engine for something different, just have to keep playing lego-rocket until I can find something middle ground.

3 hours ago, Pappystein said:

I did,   Prior to B9PartSwitch being a thing.   At the time, RF seemed to "lock" your stages... harder to do Lego-building.  

I like Lego building.   Also I don't care that the rocket has the EXACT same burn ratio as the real rocket.   IF I can get close enough... in a Close enough universe... I am A-OK.   Which Is part of the reason I use AZ-50 and NTO for ALL my Hypergolic rockets...

Several things,   You fly the flightpath as needed for your payload and your orbit.  You do not fly the same launch on a Titan 2GLV/IIIB for both Gemini and Keyhole do you?   So you change your flight profile to match your payload.      Look at tools like MechEngineer(Redux) or MechJEb.   You do not need to use the auto pilot in MJ for example.  There are a lot of good indicators added by those mods to help you fly even if you are flying yourself.

I tend to rely on Gravity Turn for my launches, though I've been playing around a little with MJ's prime vector guidance as I've always loved the idea of doing a more realistic single burn to orbit but have always had trouble doing it by hand or with ascent guidance from other sources. I also generally avoid hand flying anything other than maneuvers these days because even without this difficulty I've been experiencing recently, I tend to only give myself a relatively small spare dV budget because it doesn't feel very realistic to build a rocket with 8k dV when my mission only needs ~6k just so I can have room to bork the ascent. That all said, I know that different rockets need different ascent paths, I'm just spoiled by being able to build something with enough dV and too much TWR and then dial the TWR down to make it flyable.

On the RF configs issue, what do you mean by "lock" in this case? Did it mean you couldn't adjust the TWR like I was experiencing, or was it something else?

Edited February 8, 2021 by SpacedInvader

[Friznit]

7 hours ago, SpacedInvader said:

That's what took me up to the Atlas orginally and the new issue of having too much power / dV for the payload. Is there a middle ground between the two that I'm just missing due to lack of knowledge? I guess I could swap out the engine for something different, just have to keep playing lego-rocket until I can find something middle ground.

I tend to rely on Gravity Turn for my launches, though I've been playing around a little with MJ's prime vector guidance as I've always loved the idea of doing a more realistic single burn to orbit but have always had trouble doing it by hand or with ascent guidance from other sources. I also generally avoid hand flying anything other than maneuvers these days because even without this difficulty I've been experiencing recently, I tend to only give myself a relatively small spare dV budget because it doesn't feel very realistic to build a rocket with 8k dV when my mission only needs ~6k just so I can have room to bork the ascent. That all said, I know that different rockets need different ascent paths, I'm just spoiled by being able to build something with enough dV and too much TWR and then dial the TWR down to make it flyable.

On the RF configs issue, what do you mean by "lock" in this case? Did it mean you couldn't adjust the TWR like I was experiencing, or was it something else?

https://github.com/friznit/Unofficial-BDB-Wiki/wiki/Payload-Performance

Obviously the numbers will be completely different for a launch to GTO but it should give you a rough idea of what could sit in between Redstone and Atlas, historical timelines permitting of course, if that's also a deciding factor for you.

I've used MJ PVG a fair amount but I find it tends to work better on higher altitude launches - 200x200 at a minimum.  Below that and it tends to overshoot and burn back 'down', or burn up if the trajectory is flatter - I guess that's the whole point of not being able to throttle!  I don't use Real Fuels or Engine Ignitor but I've found that even flying manually now I tend to do single burns to orbit with no throttling (in JNSQ planet pack).  I guess I'm subconsciously mimicking MJ, but they're efficient enough launches so that suits me!

[SpacedInvader]

6 minutes ago, Friznit said:

https://github.com/friznit/Unofficial-BDB-Wiki/wiki/Payload-Performance

Obviously the numbers will be completely different for a launch to GTO but it should give you a rough idea of what could sit in between Redstone and Atlas, historical timelines permitting of course, if that's also a deciding factor for you.

I've used MJ PVG a fair amount but I find it tends to work better on higher altitude launches - 200x200 at a minimum.  Below that and it tends to overshoot and burn back 'down', or burn up if the trajectory is flatter - I guess that's the whole point of not being able to throttle!  I don't use Real Fuels or Engine Ignitor but I've found that even flying manually now I tend to do single burns to orbit with no throttling (in JNSQ planet pack).  I guess I'm subconsciously mimicking MJ, but they're efficient enough launches so that suits me!

 This is great, thanks! IDK why, but it never occurred to me to look down the list on your wiki to find this on my own, instead I've been pouring over the individual entries to see what they were used to launch and then try to infer from that what I should try using.

EDIT: As for hand flying, part of the issue for me is that hand controlling a rocket going up hill feels tedious and twitchy to me... tap one of the direction keys a little too long and you're at least going off of peak efficiency and potentially going tumbling. I also get more enjoyment from letting the machine do the work while I have fun designing the vehicles. I do hand fly most maneuvers and all landings though.

Edited February 8, 2021 by SpacedInvader

[davidy12]

On 2/2/2021 at 1:40 PM, Beale said:

Man, I have missed a lot. Didn't know @Beale is making IVAs for BDB now. What is this?!?!? Tantarian and Bluedog collaboration!?!?!?

[OrbitalManeuvers]

Two kits. One bash. I present to you the BDBee:

Spoiler

 

[Zorg]

13 hours ago, Friznit said:

https://github.com/friznit/Unofficial-BDB-Wiki/wiki/Payload-Performance

Obviously the numbers will be completely different for a launch to GTO but it should give you a rough idea of what could sit in between Redstone and Atlas, historical timelines permitting of course, if that's also a deciding factor for you.

I've used MJ PVG a fair amount but I find it tends to work better on higher altitude launches - 200x200 at a minimum.  Below that and it tends to overshoot and burn back 'down', or burn up if the trajectory is flatter - I guess that's the whole point of not being able to throttle!  I don't use Real Fuels or Engine Ignitor but I've found that even flying manually now I tend to do single burns to orbit with no throttling (in JNSQ planet pack).  I guess I'm subconsciously mimicking MJ, but they're efficient enough launches so that suits me!

 

13 hours ago, SpacedInvader said:

 This is great, thanks! IDK why, but it never occurred to me to look down the list on your wiki to find this on my own, instead I've been pouring over the individual entries to see what they were used to launch and then try to infer from that what I should try using.

EDIT: As for hand flying, part of the issue for me is that hand controlling a rocket going up hill feels tedious and twitchy to me... tap one of the direction keys a little too long and you're at least going off of peak efficiency and potentially going tumbling. I also get more enjoyment from letting the machine do the work while I have fun designing the vehicles. I do hand fly most maneuvers and all landings though.

Following this discussion I decided to help expand on the payload performance section and go a bit more in depth into what various rockets are good for. Right now just covering Titan IV-B. It wont go into such detail on most of the rest, but Titan IV is a good example of how much performance can vary due to thrust vs efficiency in your final stage. For instance the absolute max payload capacity to very low kerbin orbit thats actually acheivable with a Centaur is almost the same as using no 3rd stage due to gravity/cosine losses from having to loft to avoid crashing back into the atmo. But a Centaur offers good performance to GTO and remarkable performance direct to GEO. Hopefully as this section grows this will help users pick out the appropriate rockets or stages for various missions requirements and serve as a quick reference guide even if you're an old hand at these rockets.

The figures are also going to be based on realistic throttle and ignition requirements, which don't make a huge difference but does play into the trajectory design and final result a bit.

https://github.com/friznit/Unofficial-BDB-Wiki/wiki/Payload-Performance

 

Edited February 8, 2021 by Zorg

[Pappystein]

22 hours ago, SpacedInvader said:

On the RF configs issue, what do you mean by "lock" in this case? Did it mean you couldn't adjust the TWR like I was experiencing, or was it something els

Engine and tank combos almost had to be specifically setup...  EG agena Engine needed Agena tanks.   Mind you, that was BEFORE BDB really existed, or if it did exist it was when I was still being all "1.5m is not a stock-alike size"    Of course the last rocket I flew was a Atlas F (the proposed never flown one that would make Atlas II look short!)   Flew it with a full Centaur / Centaur Jr stack...   1.5m for Centaur JR because at 1.25... well lit looks like Thin Man to Little Boy....  

H-2 Booster engines FTW!

 

 

 

 

 

[Jim Lovell Kerman]

So Mi Playing Carrer Mode And It Turns Out The Recovery Module For The Hermes Capsule Is 18m Long

[Clamp-o-Tron]

2 minutes ago, Jim Lovell Kerman said:

So Mi Playing Carrer Mode And It Turns Out The Recovery Module For The Hermes Capsule Is 18m Long

Yeah, this is known. See https://github.com/CobaltWolf/Bluedog-Design-Bureau/issues/869.

[Jim Lovell Kerman]

oh Thanks

 

[Jcking]

For now, you can get around this by just manually changing the height of the vessel via the .craft file (no need to exit the game to change the vessel height, but you will have to do this with every change made to the craft).

Edited February 9, 2021 by Jcking

[gc1ceo]

What do people use for RTGs for the few historical builds from Bluedog that utilize a RTG? For example, the Nimbus 3.
 

[biohazard15]

OPS 0855, aka OV4-3

(NB: If you want to complete this mission without FMRS, aim at 200+ km orbit (2.5x KSRSS, YMMV depending on your planet mods), and switch to Gemini immediately after OV4-3 completed its circularization burn. Also, pay attention to notes below.)

This truly historical flight was launched at 3 November, 1966 and was the first (and the only) launch performed under Manned Orbital Laboratory (MOL, aka KH-10 DORIAN) USAF program. It was a "proof of concept" flight, demonstrating launch configuration of planned MOLs and testing Gemini separation mechanism.

Unfortunately, MLP does not give a historical option for CCAFS Titan IIIC tower (red structure with light gray panels on rocket's side, as seen here. Thus, all-light gray tower.

Lift-off, trying to reproduce the historical photo.

Sad Gemini is sad. It obviously doesn't like being launched for the second time - which is exactly what USAF did there! Gemini 2 became Gemini B, and thus the first ever reused space vehicle.

The "MOL", designated OV 4-3, was made out of Titan I's first stage oxidizer tank. It weighed 9680 kg, including 680 kg of various experiments, designated "Manifold".

The replica is made of Titan I's upper fuel tank, Titan avionics unit and GLV decoupler. Unfortunately, there is no black stripes option for these in BDB, so no historical (or at least "kinda historical") paintjob.

Engaging LR-87. I usually do that at T-5s.

Jettisoning UA-120s.

Leaving Florida.

First core stage burnout - and Gemini B jettisoning.

Note: DISABLE auto-jettison at Angelo adapter (lower part of Gemini B's adapter)! Failing to do so may lead to collision when you fire the LR-91!)

Leaving Gemini B at suborbital trajectory. You may have noticed some interesting stuff inside OV4-3; more on this later.

Firing the Transtage.

Note: this mission truly tests Titan IIIC to its LEO limits, especially pre-upgrades config. I recommend tweaking LF and OX in "MOL" to 80% or lower if you wish to achieve 200x200x33deg orbit. Oh, and don't forget to close fuel\oxidizer valves on it - otherwise Transtage would gladly use these resources, and that would be kinda cheating.

In orbit. Time to get back to our Gemini B...

...which is still sad.

Jettisoning the adapter module (no retro motors in it)

Re-entry.

Deploying the drogue chute...

...followed by the main one.

Grissom Physics™ (On the serious note - BDB folks, fix this bug please!)

Back to orbit!

OPS 0855 carried not only Gemini B and MOL mockup, but also three subsatellites from OV (Orbital Vehicle) family.

1st one, designated OV1-6S, was an unpowered satellite with "deployable optical targets". No idea what these were - flares? Lightbulbs? Anyway, this one is represented by Knes' Starlette probe. Because it a) looks cool and b) is "optical target" since it's meant to be "fired" at with laser.

2nd and 3rd were two parts of one experiment: using ionosphere for out-of-line-of-sight radio transmissions.

OV4-1T (Transmitter) was meant to send signals to its "partner". It was fitted with SRM in order to put it "out-of-line-of-sight".

OV4-1R (Receiver) was meant to receive signals from OV4-1T.

 

 

4 minutes ago, gc1ceo said:

What do people use for RTGs for the few historical builds from Bluedog that utilize a RTG? For example, the Nimbus 3.

There are RTGs for Nimbus 3.

[gc1ceo]

I'm not finding any included RTGs in BD either in the stable or dev files or am I overlooking something?

[biohazard15]

4 minutes ago, gc1ceo said:

I'm not finding any included RTGs in BD either in the stable or dev files or am I overlooking something?

Download the latest "master" build from Github - they are there. The one meant for Nimbus 3 is called PB-PANS-19M and is located in Basic Science techtree node.

[SpacedInvader]

On 2/8/2021 at 4:42 PM, Zorg said:

 

Following this discussion I decided to help expand on the payload performance section and go a bit more in depth into what various rockets are good for. Right now just covering Titan IV-B. It wont go into such detail on most of the rest, but Titan IV is a good example of how much performance can vary due to thrust vs efficiency in your final stage. For instance the absolute max payload capacity to very low kerbin orbit thats actually acheivable with a Centaur is almost the same as using no 3rd stage due to gravity/cosine losses from having to loft to avoid crashing back into the atmo. But a Centaur offers good performance to GTO and remarkable performance direct to GEO. Hopefully as this section grows this will help users pick out the appropriate rockets or stages for various missions requirements and serve as a quick reference guide even if you're an old hand at these rockets.

The figures are also going to be based on realistic throttle and ignition requirements, which don't make a huge difference but does play into the trajectory design and final result a bit.

https://github.com/friznit/Unofficial-BDB-Wiki/wiki/Payload-Performance

 

This is great! It clearly lays out what applications work best for each vehicle combination. Thanks for putting in the work to show this!

On 2/8/2021 at 5:02 PM, Pappystein said:

Engine and tank combos almost had to be specifically setup...  EG agena Engine needed Agena tanks.   Mind you, that was BEFORE BDB really existed, or if it did exist it was when I was still being all "1.5m is not a stock-alike size"    Of course the last rocket I flew was a Atlas F (the proposed never flown one that would make Atlas II look short!)   Flew it with a full Centaur / Centaur Jr stack...   1.5m for Centaur JR because at 1.25... well lit looks like Thin Man to Little Boy.... 

 

 

 

 

 

Not sure how long ago that was, but if you're thinking of the older FASA stuff, IIRC yeah, those old configs were really inflexible. So far my experience with the newer configs is that they are about as flexible as the BDB parts themselves. I've swapped plenty of parts around without issue... in fact, I'd say the most trouble I've had is from using the correct builds because of the aforementioned problems with over / under power for my payloads.

[KeaKaka]

26 minutes ago, biohazard15 said:

OPS 0855, aka OV4-3

(NB: If you want to complete this mission without FMRS, aim at 200+ km orbit (2.5x KSRSS, YMMV depending on your planet mods), and switch to Gemini immediately after OV4-3 completed its circularization burn. Also, pay attention to notes below.)

This truly historical flight was launched at 3 November, 1966 and was the first (and the only) launch performed under Manned Orbital Laboratory (MOL, aka KH-10 DORIAN) USAF program. It was a "proof of concept" flight, demonstrating launch configuration of planned MOLs and testing Gemini separation mechanism.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Unfortunately, MLP does not give a historical option for CCAFS Titan IIIC tower (red structure with light gray panels on rocket's side, as seen here. Thus, all-light gray tower.

Lift-off, trying to reproduce the historical photo.

Sad Gemini is sad. It obviously doesn't like being launched for the second time - which is exactly what USAF did there! Gemini 2 became Gemini B, and thus the first ever reused space vehicle.

The "MOL", designated OV 4-3, was made out of Titan I's first stage oxidizer tank. It weighed 9680 kg, including 680 kg of various experiments, designated "Manifold".

The replica is made of Titan I's upper fuel tank, Titan avionics unit and GLV decoupler. Unfortunately, there is no black stripes option for these in BDB, so no historical (or at least "kinda historical") paintjob.

Engaging LR-87. I usually do that at T-5s.

Jettisoning UA-120s.

Leaving Florida.

First core stage burnout - and Gemini B jettisoning.

Note: DISABLE auto-jettison at Angelo adapter (lower part of Gemini B's adapter)! Failing to do so may lead to collision when you fire the LR-91!)

Leaving Gemini B at suborbital trajectory. You may have noticed some interesting stuff inside OV4-3; more on this later.

Firing the Transtage.

Note: this mission truly tests Titan IIIC to its LEO limits, especially pre-upgrades config. I recommend tweaking LF and OX in "MOL" to 80% or lower if you wish to achieve 200x200x33deg orbit. Oh, and don't forget to close fuel\oxidizer valves on it - otherwise Transtage would gladly use these resources, and that would be kinda cheating.

In orbit. Time to get back to our Gemini B...

...which is still sad.

Jettisoning the adapter module (no retro motors in it)

Re-entry.

Deploying the drogue chute...

...followed by the main one.

Grissom Physics™ (On the serious note - BDB folks, fix this bug please!)

Back to orbit!

OPS 0855 carried not only Gemini B and MOL mockup, but also three subsatellites from OV (Orbital Vehicle) family.

1st one, designated OV1-6S, was an unpowered satellite with "deployable optical targets". No idea what these were - flares? Lightbulbs? Anyway, this one is represented by Knes' Starlette probe. Because it a) looks cool and b) is "optical target" since it's meant to be "fired" at with laser.

2nd and 3rd were two parts of one experiment: using ionosphere for out-of-line-of-sight radio transmissions.

OV4-1T (Transmitter) was meant to send signals to its "partner". It was fitted with SRM in order to put it "out-of-line-of-sight".

OV4-1R (Receiver) was meant to receive signals from OV4-1T.

 

 

 

 

Just a couple of notes.

The LR-87 is supposed to be ignited 10 seconds (not 5) before SRM cutoff, and the LR-91 needs to be hot-staged (igniting the second engine just before first engine cutoff).

[biohazard15]

1 minute ago, KeaKaka said:

The LR-87 is supposed to be ignited 10 seconds (not 5) before SRM cutoff, and the LR-91 needs to be hot-staged (igniting the second engine just before first engine cutoff).

I know

Unfortunately, these features may be hard to incorporate into replica flights. Staging LR-87 earlier (yes, even at T-10s) leads to a massive TWR spike, which may be not good. And jettisoning Gemini B during or after 2nd core stage burnout may lead to it landing somewhere in Africa or Indian Ocean (trust me, I've tried!). Not to metion that jettisoning it with 2nd stage burning usually leads to disaster.

[Pappystein]

2 hours ago, biohazard15 said:

I know

Unfortunately, these features may be hard to incorporate into replica flights. Staging LR-87 earlier (yes, even at T-10s) leads to a massive TWR spike, which may be not good. And jettisoning Gemini B during or after 2nd core stage burnout may lead to it landing somewhere in Africa or Indian Ocean (trust me, I've tried!). Not to metion that jettisoning it with 2nd stage burning usually leads to disaster.

If you are getting a "Massive TRW spike" then you have a patch to disable engine spool.    If you have such a patch then there is almost no way to get a replica flight of Titan.   ALTERNATIVELY, you might have a patch that is affecting the SRMs because they are at about half thrust when the LR87 should be turning on.   

On the other hand, nice looking Titan III-M (the Titan IIIM replcia/prototype)   Sadly that flight was just to "waste the extra money we have"  As it served almost zero informational/scientific improvement to the Titan program.  The only thing that was from the actual MOL was the Gemini II (aka BLUE-Gemini) capsule test.     Oh it did provide an almost correct size for a "Fit test" on the ground... Didn't need to launch it after doing that however!

the III-M (aka OPS 0855, aka OV4-3) is a Titan IIIC with the 2nd generation UA-1205s and the standard tank lengths for Titan IIIC (and it flew on LR87-AJ-9 engines instead of AJ-11s!)  

Conversely as is probably well known at this juncture....  The "real" Titan IIIM (or more probably correct 24M!)  would have flown with 2nd generation UA-1207s,   The Stretched 1st stage tank and the LR87-AJ-11 engines.

The LR87-AJ-11 PARTS (as in to test them in flight) did not start flying on Titan IIICs until the flight before the Titan III-M flight.   It would be almost 2 years before the LR87 and LR91 would fly with full up AJ-11 engines.  That would be the start of the Titan 23 family for those of you keeping score!

However mass media loves to quote the -11 engines on all Titan IIIs.   Because the Titan IIIB and Titan IIIC flew with different parts (eg bigger hydraulic actuators, wider spaced combustion chambers, skirt extensions, a lot of other things,) but never with more than 2 of any of the various "upgraded" parts.   And with the exception of the bell-skirt extensions and wider spacing they were all single part replacements.

 

[Pappystein]

Just a friendly update on the Titan IV engine saga.

I have found proof... that I can't share (but at-least I can cite it!) of the AJ-11A engines!  YAY.   Sadly the document in question predates the actual Titan IV order.   So I still don't know IF they were ordered or flew.   But 1 step closer!

So a conversation had on one of @CobaltWolfs streams during the Titan Dev cycle is going to come back to bite me.    If what Ed Kyle says is correct.... there is an easy visual clue as to the LR87-AJ-11A...

   Per Ed Kyle the turbo-pump exhaust was fitted with De-Laval nozzles on the -11A (which would generate more thrust!)   and those are only visible on the Titan IV and CT3 .   All previous Titan III family members with SRMs the Turbo-pump exhaust was flush with the bottom of the " boat-tail"   On the Titan CT3 and IV, they extended below... and latter had the bell shapes added on.

The Black bag looking thing above the two engine bells is the Turbo-pump exhaust for the engine closest to the camera.

notice the bell shape. and the pinched waist above the bell?

Notice on this older LR87-AJ-5 or 7 the Turbo-pump Exhaust is basically a straight pipe....

 

[zakkpaz]

Speaking of RTG's, have they been balanced for the game yet? they seem a bit overpowered

 

[CobaltWolf]

On 2/7/2021 at 8:52 PM, SpacedInvader said:

That's what took me up to the Atlas orginally and the new issue of having too much power / dV for the payload. Is there a middle ground between the two that I'm just missing due to lack of knowledge? I guess I could swap out the engine for something different, just have to keep playing lego-rocket until I can find something middle ground.

Probably want to use a Thor or Jupiter first stage then.

4 hours ago, zakkpaz said:

Speaking of RTG's, have they been balanced for the game yet? they seem a bit overpowered

Probably not, the current update is the aether and hasn't told me whether all its bugs are fixed or not

 

Speaking of not knowing what's going on with the current release, I realized I haven't posted the current state of the Apollo CSM:

 

This weekend I think I'd like to start on the LM? Since I want to get everything basically modeled so that I can verify everything fits together, before I actually start texturing. Last night, Apollo the Gecko was helping me do some research on it. As I pondered, my assistant gave me some inspiration: Henceforth, the LM shall be known in BDB as the Munar Landing and Excursion Module, or MLEM.

 

 

Edited February 10, 2021 by CobaltWolf

[Spaceman.Spiff]

27 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

current state of the Apollo CSM

27 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

MLEM.

[Starhelperdude]

47 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Probably want to use a Thor or Jupiter first stage then.

Probably not, the current update is the aether and hasn't told me whether all its bugs are fixed or not

 

Speaking of not knowing what's going on with the current release, I realized I haven't posted the current state of the Apollo CSM:

 

This weekend I think I'd like to start on the LM? Since I want to get everything basically modeled so that I can verify everything fits together, before I actually start texturing. Last night, Apollo the Gecko was helping me do some research on it. As I pondered, my assistant gave me some inspiration: Henceforth, the LM shall be known in BDB as the Munar Landing and Excursion Module, or MLEM.

 

 

cute boi

[Guest]

(Deleted Post)

Edited June 8, 2022 by Guest