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

[Hohmannson]

23 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

parachutes so Gemini lands horizontally

https://spacedock.info/mod/1787/Notantares - Gemini Paraglider Exactly this one(like IRL proposal) and exactly for BDB. Will need some training to steer, but it's a thing.

 

Edited March 24, 2021 by Hohmannson

[Pappystein]

2 hours ago, Zorg said:

Yeah, the engine in its SL version is quoted as 250k lbf at sea level. Alternatewars quotes 265k lbf for vac performance of the SL version but I havent found the original source for that figure. 

 Isp figures for the either version arent available but I do have a rough guide based on a theoretical RL20 performance graph at various expansion ratios in a book.

In Ksp terms this means the J2 SL as we have it configured produces 193kN at SL and 234.7kN in Vac.

The RL20  SL would be 278kN at sea level and 294kN in Vac.

Being an engine that was never built we might not take this as gospel and might tweak things for balance taking into consideration where the XLR129 and the RL20 vac fits as well.

Just making sure the RL20 will be a good HG-3 replacement 

If it can effectively fly the Stupid Paper Saturn II INT-17 then it is goodnuf for me.   Personally I am more a INT-18 kinda guy with a fallback to the INT-19...   But some people gotta INT-17 it all the way.

Also out of curiosity... What book?

I just got a new book for Rocket engines (Liquid) and haven't even cracked it yet.  

[Zorg]

11 hours ago, Pappystein said:

Also out of curiosity... What book?

Advanced Engine Development at Pratt and Whitney: The Inside Story of Eight Special Projects, 1946-1971 by Dick Mulready. TJ managed to borrow it on my behalf to check the data and someone else had posted the only RL20 images from it on twitter a while back.

[pTrevTrevs]

On 3/23/2021 at 6:41 PM, SpaceFace545 said:

Probably won't happen but could you guys figure out how to get the parachutes so Gemini lands horizontally.

 

You mean how Gemini's main parachute used a two point suspension system so the capsule hit the water at an angle instead of head on? I'd like to see that too, actually.

[SpaceFace545]

5 minutes ago, pTrevTrevs said:

You mean how Gemini's main parachute used a two point suspension system so the capsule hit the water at an angle instead of head on? I'd like to see that too, actually.

Yeah, I think that’s what the  white strip going down the middle of the doors is for.

[pTrevTrevs]

Just now, SpaceFace545 said:

Yeah, I think that’s what the  white strip going down the middle of the doors is for.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's the housing for the parachute's second suspension line.

[SpaceFace545]

7 minutes ago, pTrevTrevs said:

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's the housing for the parachute's second suspension line.

the parachute's suspension may be hard to implement but it would be cool.

[CobaltWolf]

17 hours ago, pTrevTrevs said:

You mean how Gemini's main parachute used a two point suspension system so the capsule hit the water at an angle instead of head on? I'd like to see that too, actually.

17 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Yeah, I think that’s what the  white strip going down the middle of the doors is for.

17 hours ago, pTrevTrevs said:

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's the housing for the parachute's second suspension line.

17 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

the parachute's suspension may be hard to implement but it would be cool.

I originally wanted to implement the two-point suspension, but stopped for a couple reasons. I'd have to make one like what's currently available ANYWAYS for alternate configurations. Moreover, as far as I know, there's no way to actually do suspension from more than one point for the parachute module... so the harness part would have to be rigidly animated, and then I don't know if I can get it to despawn once the chute is cut... The parachute module is very temperamental so I didn't trust that it would work anyways.

[SpaceFace545]

Yeah, that makes sense. Still a very cool piece of kit. I especially like the metal link between the capsule and parachute.

[Pappystein]

3 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

I originally wanted to implement the two-point suspension, but stopped for a couple reasons. I'd have to make one like what's currently available ANYWAYS for alternate configurations. Moreover, as far as I know, there's no way to actually do suspension from more than one point for the parachute module... so the harness part would have to be rigidly animated, and then I don't know if I can get it to despawn once the chute is cut... The parachute module is very temperamental so I didn't trust that it would work anyways.

Further the two part chute attachment is not for landing on water on the "back" of the capsule but rather for landing under a Rogallo wing on dry land.    Since the wing is inflated and a single skin material, it proved impossible to do.  

See how the skin is much thinner than the leading edge and the "truss" material?   That creates a lot of aerodynamic forces that were un-suspected in the days of slide-rules for calculations.

and yes that is one of the Gemini test capsules landing (they made two or 3 I think for the Rogallo wing tests.)   

Latter (and well actually before the above photo as well) the Rogallo wing, with a metal structure, would evolve into Hang-gliding.   The metal structure being thinner and less flexible reduced the weird flight characteristics to that of a more normal flexible flying wing.

 

You can also see why the Rogallo wing isn't a parachute available for the Gemini.   Again much more than one wire.

To make a Rogallo wing work in KSP would require atleast two additional DLLs beyond what BDB already supports.   

Retractable Wings being the first (and only one currently built)

and a "Maintain COP-COM Relationship" mod would have to be written. to prevent the weird asymmetric mass to COP relationship in KSP with either stock or replacement aerodynamics.

 

 

Edited March 26, 2021 by Pappystein

[Starhelperdude]

1 minute ago, Pappystein said:

 

 

 

 

I see a gemini hanging from a Annihilator-Class Battlecruiser/Dreadnought here xD

though the SSD is way thiccer than the parachute thing

[Pappystein]

10 minutes ago, Starhelperdude said:

I see a gemini hanging from a Annihilator-Class Battlecruiser/Dreadnought here xD

though the SSD is way thiccer than the parachute thing

Bah it is an Acclimator class Troop Transport.   Look bulbous tail coming out of the Thick Wing.   

 

[Starhelperdude]

1 minute ago, Pappystein said:

Bah it is an Acclimator class Troop Transport.   Look bulbous tail coming out of the Thick Wing.   

 

but the annihilator has wings on the right and left side on the back but the acclamator is more similar in front shape with the parachute

[pTrevTrevs]

The other day someone posted a Redstone Super Heavy (or whatever it should be called) with four booster Redstone cores around a center sustainer. This morning I had a moment of unholy inspiration and thought something like this: "The Redstone and Thor IRBMs were on *roughly* equal footing when they were first developed, so what would have happened if the powers that be had opted to further develop Redstone instead of Thor?" Only took me a few minutes in the editor to rough out these frankenboosters.

Redstone/Able

Redstone/Delta, 4x Castor 1 boosters

Redstone/Delta E, 4x Castor1's

Long Tank Redstone with Strawman/Agena D. Had a Redstone with Agena A and another with Agena B but I must have lost the screenshots of those.

Redstone 1000. At this point the Redstone starts to be a hindrance, with its comparatively narrow diameter making it awkward to mate to later generation Delta upper stages. Still, I'm amazed at how eerily similar it looks to the Delta 1000 series...

 

And to complete the role-reversal, here's Mercury-Thor for manned suborbital flights. Not actually sure where the avionics go on the Thor missile, so maybe this should have a bit more space between the spacecraft adapter and the upper end of the Thor tankage.

 

I’d like to feel proud about this spark of creativity, but I can’t help but feel like I’ve violated some moral standard.

 

Edited March 26, 2021 by pTrevTrevs

[Cdodders]

1 hour ago, Starhelperdude said:

I see a gemini hanging from a Annihilator-Class Battlecruiser/Dreadnought here xD

though the SSD is way thiccer than the parachute thing

Issues with the pic?

[Starhelperdude]

1 minute ago, Cdodders said:

Issues with the pic?

? isn't it showing up? it shows up to me. put a point between the google and com in the spoiler tab here:

Spoiler

https://www.google com/search?q=annihilator+class+super+star+destroyer&client=opera-gx&hs=vBG&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjh9Mqy1c7vAhXu0eAKHYMAA9UQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1879&bih=939#imgrc=bC3-HM4xpcT4xM

 

[Cdodders]

4 minutes ago, Starhelperdude said:

? isn't it showing up? it shows up to me. put a point between the google and com in the spoiler tab here:

  Reveal hidden contents

https://www.google com/search?q=annihilator+class+super+star+destroyer&client=opera-gx&hs=vBG&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjh9Mqy1c7vAhXu0eAKHYMAA9UQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1879&bih=939#imgrc=bC3-HM4xpcT4xM

 

That did it, I think?

 

Edited March 26, 2021 by Cdodders

[Brin01]

Is the Dona lander engine supposed to have a white cone in the exhaust?

[SpaceFace545]

1 hour ago, Brin01 said:

Is the Dona lander engine supposed to have a white cone in the exhaust?

yes, its supposed to be a hypergolic engine. that's generally what hypergolic engines look like. the LR 87s from the Titan rockets should have a similar plume swell.

[Brin01]

Are the Titan separation motors supposed to shut down before they run out of fuel? The motors say "Air combustion failed"  when there are still 3.17 units of solid fuel left.

[KeaKaka]

6 hours ago, pTrevTrevs said:

Oh hey, I was literally just about to make that monstrosity actually kind of good idea.

[Zorg]

6 hours ago, Brin01 said:

Is the Dona lander engine supposed to have a white cone in the exhaust?

Will be fixed in an update in a few days time. 

[CobaltWolf]

Deb Streabm

[CAPFlyer]

On 3/24/2021 at 5:23 PM, Starhelperdude said:

I'm a bit confused about the RL-10 amount on the centaurs on the late atlases

so I think all before 3 used 2 Rl-10s? then 3A and B (with the centaur 3) used 1, then the atlas V came with either 2 or 1

is that true?

Close.  Atlas III introduced the "Common Centaur" configuration used from then until today.  The idea was to be able to just build tanks and plumbing and then be able to choose at the end whether to use 1 or 2 engines.  The Atlas IIIA used the SEC (Single Engine Centaur) and the IIIB used the DEC (Dual Engine Centaur).  With the Atlas III and the introduction of the RD-180 engine and true 2 stage configuration, the need for a Dual Engine Centaur (and its impulse) was greatly reduced, allowing Centaur to transition to this new design and with the Atlas V, be primarily used in the Single Engine configuration (in fact, no DECs were used on Atlas V until the Starliner launch).

[Pappystein]

Agena Chapter 2.   Intermission:  Agena and Vega

 

Previous post:

 

Spoiler

As seen in the previous chapter, Via three different projects, two groups created the original RAND Corporation dream of a space satellite launcher.   Pied Piper, or latter as it would be named Agena, was not the only upper stage satellite launcher or satellite in development.   Ramo Woodbridge or, more correctly, Thompson Ramo Woodbridge (AKA TRW) worked in conjunction with Convair to develop a quicker, “cheaper” alternative to the USAF’s pie in the sky Centaur high energy upper stage.   Vega, which I plan to cover in more detail in a future document, was designed as a quick and dirty re-use of Centaur design steps on a Kerolox stage.   Vega, would also combine with the proposed Juno IVB’s upper stage to be the apparent stage for the early 1960s space exploration.    As stated in the previous chapter Pied Piper come Agena A was a grey program.  Meaning it was not well known outside of the USAF/CIA itself.   Now what you are about to read is a mostly my opinion based on the following few facts.  

·         NASA was COMPETING with the USAF for space in 1959.

·         The USAF was rapidly losing trust in Convair General Dynamics

·         The USAF was still trying to bully other organizations out of their perceived territory.

·         The USAF felt they were the only organization capable of handling anything with the word flight in it.

The USAF (and the so-called Military Industrial Complex) was not wanting civilian agencies involved in what they felt was “their turf.”   The USAF wanted full control over its contractors and did not like to share said control with a civilian agency that might harm the USAF’s manifest destiny.   In short, the USAF being just over 10 years old, defended its “territory” with zealous rancor.   Anyone trying to enter USAF’s area of “expertise” was harangued, harassed, or made to look like they did not belong.   Damn the torpedoes full speed ahead was the attitude that I perceive of that time.    Many of you readers may feel this is an unfair portrayal of the early USAF.   I give you simple proof in this attitude with things like the Admirals Revolt, Fixed wing aircraft in the US Army to name two easy to read up on ones.   The USAF is a fantastic organization. Once they found their place under a civilian government in the late 1950s and early 1960s became the spear that it is today in the United State’s arsenal of democracy.  But sadly, we are talking about those same 1950s and early 1960s when the US Government had to use more rod and less carrot with the USAF… and the US Army… and to a lesser extent the US Navy… and even with NASA!

Enter Agena and Vega.   Vega, a Product of Convair who has not been pleasing the USAF recently with early Atlas failures, the F-102 Delta Dagger debacle, the equally bad F7Y Sea Dart, and R3Y Tradewind debacle for the US Navy….   Well, the USAF did not want Convair’s engineers to spread thinner than needed.   While the USAF is responsible for the start of the Vega program, as a quicker extension of the long-term Centaur program, the Vega program was seen as expendable, duplicative and un-necessary in light of things like Juno IVB and Agena.   This expendability was because the USAF already had Agena on the books, and while the Vega had better performance, the USAF did not think they needed it at this time, and they were wrong.  The issue being Vega was partially cryogenic with its liquid oxygen oxidizer.   People may tell you LOX won’t boil off rapidly.  Sure, in comparison to Liquid Hydrogen LOX does not boil off all that fast.  But it sure boils off enough to not last for more than a few orbits in space.   It may be easier to prevent said boiloff than with Liquid Hydrogen, but you cannot stop it.   This un-reliability on orbit is why the USAF thought the Agena had more potential.   The Agena in its final production form could lift less than Vega to orbit.  But it could continuously re-boost said payload if still attached.   Something the Vega could not do.   The LOX would boil off in a matter of days turning gaseous and potentially rupturing the tanks.  Of-course, by adding the TRW Juno IVB upper stage to the Vega, you had a storable fuel final stage.   In the USAF’s mind, this made a bad job worse because the Juno IVB upper stage was tiny and had a small 6000lb thrust engine.   USAF fighter and bomber pilot mentality at the time was “go fast or go home.”   See XB-70 Valkyrie, B-58 Hustler, F-104 Starfighter, F-106 Delta Dart, and YF-12A Blackbird for good examples of this idea!    So, we can thank the USAF for not wanting someone else managing a space program.  Remember, the USAF was the final decision maker on every NASA purchased Thor, Atlas, or Titan Rocket and every Agena, Able or Ablestar stage.  You could even blame the USAF for Thor-Delta becoming just Delta and leading to that fun naming convention for NASA as the USAF was not in charge of it!   Of the main rockets listed above, only at the Titan 3E do we see the USAF step back away from much of the design decisions for a NASA production rocket.  Finally, the USAF was ready to let someone else play in their patch of sky.  Yes, you can see I have a LOT of opinions on the USAF seeking control of space.    Now, what is the point of all this opinion?   In 1958-1960 while still early in the development of both Vega and Centaur, the USAF offered to NASA their new Agena Rocket.   It would be cheaper and ready earlier than Vega (by a few months.)   Of course, we all know the drawbacks of NASA choosing Agena over their preferred Vega.

·         Small diameter means smaller physically sized payloads. While the TRW stage was tiny, the base Vega could lift Centaur-sized items into space.

·         USAF still has control.

·         No control of price spiral

·         USAF preferential treatment when orders were placed

·         Little say in the development of new versions (until Shuttle Agena in the 1970s)

But NASA was new, and to be perfectly frank, was having budget and leadership issues from the get-go.  Honestly, any new organization has these issues, so that is not so surprising.  Something else to consider, NASA did not want to rock the boat and wanted to have a civil discourse, at least in public.  In private, with the access to their own records, we know NASA also was a bit big-headed then, and we can see some of that today, Boeing Starliner… oops, sorry, not sorry!  Sacrificing Vega for the sake of not rocking the boat was probably the right decision in the short term for NASA.  But it left the long term open for lots of problems, not limited to Agena not meeting NASA's needs.    No one seems to have seriously considered a combination of the Vega first stage with the Agena as an upper stage.   But then again, the large size payload fairings (PLF)s technology was not really perfected until the early 1970s.

Edited March 27, 2021 by Pappystein