Jump to content

[1.8.1-1.11.2] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.7.3 "Огромный" 19/Apr/2021)


Recommended Posts

On 8/7/2016 at 1:11 PM, NeoFatalis said:

For some reason the mercury parchute and mini sample return capsule parchutes spawn opened in the vab and when you go outside the vab they are still deployed and kinda "frozen" and there are no options for controlling the parachute (deploy the parachute or control the deployment altitude for example) and also when you choose the mercury one in the vab it says in the debug menu "[Error]: Cannot find fx group of that name for decoupler"

I found out that it was caused by some weird RealChute config in a mod called ShadowWorks

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/8/2016 at 11:17 AM, Jso said:

Here's what the 4.25/6.5 and 3.75/5.625 meter look like side by side. The S-IV goes from 3.125 to 3.75 at the 4.25/6.5 scale. I didn't have any difficulty manipulating this in the VAB and it does fit under the rafters.

ZnvFv4Y.png

Performance wise with a 48 ton payload:

  4.25/6.5 3.75/5.625

4.25/6.5 cryo

3.75/5.625 cryo
S-IC dv 1,977 1,900 2,729 2,582
S-II dv 3,345 3,009 3,264 2,800
S-IVB dv 3,335 2,714 2,562 1,987
Total dv 8,657 7,624 8,556 7,370
Launch Mass 1,424.5 t 949.6 t 1,151.4 t 772.4 t
F1 Thrust 1.17 twr 3,750 kN 2,500 kN 3,025 kN 2,025 kN

On stock Kerbin all are capable of reaching orbit with the second stage. We can probably cheat the numbers down a little with some creative rounding of the tank capacities.

 

... I have not now any procedural tanks, so it could be just a random question:

How is looking a "dreadful" (I hate the proportion of an ipotetical combination) 6.5m/3.75m combination??
(Mixing the actual "Sarnus I" size for the S-IV-B and eventually a first/second at the bigger sprectrum of diameter)

Because...
... i'm not against the "bigger" first/second stage stage diameter: with a PROPORTIONED thirs stage (and also a little upscaled Sarnus I) at 4.25m (and CSM 2.5m diameter at natural, pretty exactly, proportion): I LIKE IT !

... I advocated only the 5.625m/3.75m combo, just to mantain some sort of PROPORTION, in the rocket, if Sarnus I stay at 3.75m as Cobalt was not whilling to redo it, with a little bigger (in proportion) CSM at 2.5m diameter: it is less noticeable if just "the point" of the rocket it's sligthly bigger (kerbals have big heads than humans: space is needed LOL :D...)

I was for the "5.625m" to avoid "Sarnus V" to become a "stubby" first/second stage at 6.5m, paired for the skinny possible S-IV-B (3.75m)!!!
It make me shiver!!!:0.0:

 

"Fat stubby big rocket" goes this way:

 


n1-5l.jpg

... fat moon rockets went "boom!"

 

** DISCLAIMER: **... i'm heavily joking here... :P

... but still, I'll hate the 3.75/6.5m combo as it's the worst proportion combo of all...
( +1 for 3.75m/5.625m)
(+0.5 for 4.25m/6.5m)
(-111111111!!!!111!11!1!1 for 6.5/3.75m)

Edited by Araym
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Araym said:

How is looking a "dreadful" (I hate the proportion of an ipotetical combination) 6.5m/3.75m combination??

Part of the equation here is balance relative to the rest of the pack. The F1 engine's thrust needs to be 2214 kN +- a little. The engine required to lift the 6.5 meter stack would be wildly OP. There's a 443 ton difference between the 6.5 and 5.625 sizes so it would need to be pretty stubby to lose that much weight.

The 2214 engines drop the TWR on the LFO version to 1.04. But there's plenty of excess deltav. Take some fuel out here and there and you're in business. I think it will be ok on upscaled Kerbins with SMURFF and/or Cryofuel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2016 at 2:58 PM, CobaltWolf said:

To add more fuel to the fire, our (meaning me, @Jso, and @VenomousRequiem) current concerns / things that have been brought up and need to be answered:

  • Accuracy - truly accurate scaling would mean a 4.25m S-IVB, which isn't even a 0.625m size. But, we've tried really hard to keep everything accurate and balanced relative to their real world counterparts, and each other. Making it less accurate (generally, smaller) means it will perform worse, possibly to the point that when running a proper rescale to make things closer to their IRL performance, the SV might not be able to actually carry out an Apollo flight.
  • Balance - As Jso has pointed out to me, a 5.625m Saturn V has HALF the LFO of a 6.25m Saturn V. In his words, 'changes in diameter in this scale are non-trivial'. Changing the fuel then changes the engine balance, etc. The F1s/J2s would then risk over/underperforming, etc.
  • Size - @Araym showed that the 5.625m Saturn V just BARELY fits into the VAB. I would rather not force players to use subassemblies or something to properly assemble a Saturn V. Or rather, I don't want to make things too complicated for the player.
  • Time - Doing Saturn with a 4.25m upper stage means having to redo all the Saturn 1 parts - no, this is not a simple config edit to rescale them. It also means rethinking plans for the Atlas CELV and the LDC Titan.
  • Cryogenics - another part of the issue is that the second and third stages of the IRL Saturn are far lighter than their KSP equivalents. The fuel is far less dense, and the dry mass of the tanks is also lighter. That means more weight that has to get pushed by those F1s and J2s.
  • Skylab - We have some concern that the geometry of Skylab (re: the launch configuration, and the deployment of the ATM) might not work out if we don't scale it accurately.

Honestly, keep up the discussion everyone. I am actually taking a break from moving out of my apartment right now. Hopefully y'all can come to a consensus on how to do this.

I vote 5.625m Saturn V.

Also, you could just make the S-II and S-IVB LH2 fueled...

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, _Augustus_ said:

I vote 5.625m Saturn V.

Also, you could just make the S-II and S-IVB LH2 fueled...

And then what do I do when people don't have Cryogenic Engines installed?

In any case, I think we've decided on 3.75m / 5.625m for a number of reasons.

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

And then what do I do when people don't have Cryogenic Engines installed?

In any case, I think we've decided on 3.75m / 5.625m for a number of reasons.

iid prefer 5.625 meter because it isnt 3.75m

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, 123nick said:

iid prefer 5.625 meter because it isnt 3.75m

 

I think 3.75m is the size of the S-IVb so the whole stack is 5.625-3.75-2.5 from bottom to top.

 

And 5.625 sounds just fine too, it'll still serve as a great have lift system for me. And that makes me happy.

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

Part of the equation here is balance relative to the rest of the pack. The F1 engine's thrust needs to be 2214 kN +- a little. The engine required to lift the 6.5 meter stack would be wildly OP. There's a 443 ton difference between the 6.5 and 5.625 sizes so it would need to be pretty stubby to lose that much weight.

The 2214 engines drop the TWR on the LFO version to 1.04. But there's plenty of excess deltav. Take some fuel out here and there and you're in business. I think it will be ok on upscaled Kerbins with SMURFF and/or Cryofuel.

... just to confirm also my maths were so similar in my "placeholder" 5.625m scale

My F-1 "placeholder" tuned to:

Isp s.l: 263 / Isp vacuum: 304

Sea level thrust: 2163
Vacuum thrust: 2500

5x F-1: ~1.1 TWR at launch for my placeholder :D
At roughly 23km altitude (kerbin stock atmo and size) first stage is spent then dropped...
 

Edited by Araym
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Araym said:

... just to confirm also my maths were so similar in my "placeholder" 5.625m scale

My F-1 "placeholder" tuned to:

Isp s.l: 263 / Isp vacuum: 304

Sea level thrust: 2163
Vacuum thrust: 2500

5x F-1: ~1.1 TWR at launch for my placeholder :D
At roughly 23km altitude (kerbin stock atmo and size) first stage is spent then dropped...

I'm talking 2214 vacuum thrust.

These are my guesses if you want to compare it to your working model. Try it with the 2214 engine. Take a little fuel out of the first stage, and a lot out of the second stage to get the twr back up.

Stage Gross Mass Empty Mass
Saturn IC 540.629 93.471
Saturn II 273.694 37.954
Saturn IVB 81.818 10.600
Payload 48.000  
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

And then what do I do when people don't have Cryogenic Engines installed?

In any case, I think we've decided on 3.75m / 5.625m for a number of reasons.

You don't need CryoEngines, just the CRP, which you could bundle with BDB.

What do the CSM and LM look like right now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

small update here folks - I'm finally settled into my temporary living arrangements for the next couple weeks. Hopefully I'll be able to get back to a regular work schedule. I have gotten some very small work done on LEM here and there - mostly UV unwrapping bits of the legs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

... gggrrr... I hate my cellphone... do not consider my above, empty reply, as "a bug"... LOL...

.... beside

11 hours ago, Jso said:

I'm talking 2214 vacuum thrust.

These are my guesses if you want to compare it to your working model. Try it with the 2214 engine. Take a little fuel out of the first stage, and a lot out of the second stage to get the twr back up.

Stage Gross Mass Empty Mass
Saturn IC 540.629 93.471
Saturn II 273.694 37.954
Saturn IVB 81.818 10.600
Payload 48.000  

... As soon I'll have my pc, I'll look to some KSP Kerbal Engineering screenshot to tell my numbers better :P
... or send to you, Jso, Cobalt and any one of the developers a private zip with the "whole" placeholder to initial "comparison tests"...

I sense that my placeholder is then probably on the "safely overengineered" side of a tweaks, in cfg, but is "roleplaying" whise for me: i play with Dang-It (random failure could occurs :P) so the my placeholder has to perform under some failure test (... 1x F-1 engine failure in flight... up to 2x J-2 failure for second stage... bla bla bla... as some of them were planned and some also HAPPENED in real life and the rocket still flew in space :P:cool:)... for worse case scenario, there is always then the "Abort with LES" option... :cool:

My placeholder could be a little heavier, also, because for model cfg tweaking reason, it is at a 5.68m scale (I'm not a 3d modder... i just play with KSP numbers in cfg, so I had to adapt myself from model found on internet...) to fit with its own 3rd stage at perfect 3.75m diameter to blend with stock-scaled parts (problem was the slanted decoupler from S-II to S-IV-B: I had to adjust it and I was forced to that first-second diameter, so I then used it in the part editing)...

Like ANY "real-ish rocket", in a stock enviroment (stock aero and stock Kerbin dimension) it is OVERPERFORMING as it will be yours, anyway (orbit in just the first two stages... whole trip Kerbin to Mun or to Minmus, circularization -not neede but whole possible in stock enviroment- onto the S-IV-B for hybrid "direct approach-LEM extraction" on any of the two moons orbit)

(But not strange: a basic Gemini-Titan II from your own mod is "cis-munar" capable on its own... real life is different from the game... I do not care: "overperforming" storical rockets means they will used for those "never developed" fine things I had in game: I'm willing to )


... As I'm using it just for "eyecandy" play, it is not surelly perfect, but I do not care...
KSP is fun mostly for it's ludicrous performances, sometime (i will play "Orbiter", if i wanna an earth-like simulator game :P):

... remember that, stock, kerbals could visit the whole kerbol solar system onto 3.75m diameter, if playing stock...

... with a 5.6~ meter diameter rocket, my kerbal will start "massive kerbol system colonization": i wanna 2 or 3 Werner-stations around planets! (Werner Von Braun dream: a series of saturnV-like tank interplanetary ships in a transport network to build "anything anywhere" in space *_*)

Also, as I had already some interesting parts available from various mods, it should be balanced to be a "two stage launcer":

before the rocket themself, it could be wise to model-develop-think about the Skylab parts for mass-weight balance. My overperforming placeholder rocket it become "right" stipped of the third stage.
KSP problem in balance is mostly not in Dv needed to orbit, but then that moons and outer planets have very small orbits. Only when we are "already in space", we do not need so much Dv as real life...

Edited by Araym
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys, new to the forum, definitely not new to KSP. Just wanted to say, keep up the awesome work Araym! I've been lost since the days of the FASA mod Saturn V. Recreating the Mercury and Gemini missions with your models has been fantastic!I can't wait to see your updates and hopefully I can find a way to help in the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

Hey guys, new to the forum, definitely not new to KSP. Just wanted to say, keep up the awesome work Araym! I've been lost since the days of the FASA mod Saturn V. Recreating the Mercury and Gemini missions with your models has been fantastic!I can't wait to see your updates and hopefully I can find a way to help in the future.

Did... Did you just credit @Araym for the whole mod?

I think you're missing a few of us. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, [email protected] said:

Hey guys, new to the forum, definitely not new to KSP. Just wanted to say, keep up the awesome work Araym! I've been lost since the days of the FASA mod Saturn V. Recreating the Mercury and Gemini missions with your models has been fantastic!I can't wait to see your updates and hopefully I can find a way to help in the future.

 

4 hours ago, VenomousRequiem said:

Did... Did you just credit @Araym for the whole mod?

I think you're missing a few of us. :P

... :blush:
DISCLAIMER!
I'm NOT a developer of this mod (as I have no skill in 3d drawing)...
... that "saturn" of mine is NOT part of this mod but just a collection of random parts from other mods that i'm showing to Cobalt, Jso and Venomous as "reference" (as a personal "placeholder" in my game, waiting for something better)...
... I just, sometime, as heavy KSP player, look at their parts, advicing here and there: my "best" effort is some cfg editing or you could consider me a "an unofficial tester" but not related at all to THEIR AMAZING WORKS!

( @VenomousRequiem ... :blush: I'm embarassed)

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

Can I ask about the progress on the S-IC/S-II, S-II/S-IVB Interstages and the SLA?

Nope. 

In all seriousness, Cobalt has been pretty busy lately. The Saturn V first two stages haven't been started yet, and the S-IVb I think needs a UV map and everything. The LEM has been kind of difficult because from what I've heard Maya is giving him problems. We're a little behind schedule, but you'll get it all soon enough. :P

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...