Jump to content

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


CobaltWolf

Recommended Posts

While github still doesnt seem have acknowledged the issue, I found out you can download the revamp branch just by forcing the correct URL. if you would rather not clone to desktop (which imo is a good idea) or fork the repo (bad idea cos you need to manually merge any new commits we make). you can just download from this link

https://github.com/CobaltWolf/Bluedog-Design-Bureau/archive/refs/heads/apollo-saturn-revamp.zip

 

Edited by Zorg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Zorg said:

While github still doesnt seem have acknowledged the issue, I found out you can download the revamp branch just by forcing the correct URL. if you would rather not clone to desktop (which imo is a good idea) or fork the repo (bad idea cos you need to manually merge any new commits we make). you can just download from this link

https://github.com/CobaltWolf/Bluedog-Design-Bureau/archive/refs/heads/apollo-saturn-revamp.zip

 

Thanks Zorg!

 

While I use Github Desktop and web interface pretty extensively (and have the Saturn Branch in the desktop interface longer than the Github Issue has been happening,)   it is not easy for someone new to Github to really use.   Posting the link like this (maybe a temporary edit to the Front page @CobaltWolf?)   is a big help to many who want to play with new toyz when they are broken and still being polished by the team.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:

Was the center F1 engine shutdown triggered by an unconditional T+x timing sort of thing, or was it a performance/detection type event, like G or Q or fuel levels or ... ?

are you referencing apollo 13? if yes, it wasn't the center F1 that shut down, it was the center J2 on the 2nd stage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, zakkpaz said:

i thought that was just in the last few launches so they could get rid of the ullage motors on the interstage?

No, that is an often stated miss-understanding. 

People didn't comment on it until after the Ullage motors were reduced and then removed....   Didn't mean it had anything to do with it...   It is kind of like how the actions of a congressional aid putting a saturn drawing in the Nova Report causes everyone thinks Saturn was part of Nova.

 

That would also be like me owning a 1974 AMC Javelin and calling it a Dodge because in the 1980s Dodge absorbed AMC....

 

Edited by Pappystein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, zakkpaz said:

i thought that was just in the last few launches so they could get rid of the ullage motors on the interstage?

No, center engine shutdown at T+135s was always a thing (at least according to the last page of the 1968 NASA fact sheet the Wikipedia page references).

3 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

No, that is an often stated miss-understanding. 

People didn't comment on it until after the Ullage motors were reduced and then removed....   Didn't mean it had anything to do with it...   It is kind of like how the actions of a congressional aid putting a saturn drawing in the Nova Report causes everyone thinks Saturn was part of Nova.

 

So why were the ullage motors gotten rid of, and how did they settle the second stage propellant without them?

Edited by OrdinaryKerman
add link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Pappystein said:

Thanks Zorg!

While I use Github Desktop and web interface pretty extensively (and have the Saturn Branch in the desktop interface longer than the Github Issue has been happening,)   it is not easy for someone new to Github to really use.   Posting the link like this (maybe a temporary edit to the Front page @CobaltWolf?)   is a big help to many who want to play with new toyz when they are broken and still being polished by the team.

Was thinking the same thing, done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, OrdinaryKerman said:

No, center engine shutdown at T+135s was always a thing (at least according to the last page of the 1968 NASA fact sheet the Wikipedia page references).

So why were the ullage motors gotten rid of, and how did they settle the second stage propellant without them?

I am not an expert on this portion so I will say I am not 100000000% certain. 

But We can intuit several factors.  

1) while minuscule, AmatureAstronnaut1969 is not wrong about Earth Gravity.   I don't think it, alone, would be enough to settle an un-settled fuel supply at the engine pump head... but then we get to 2

2) INERTIA.   The Rocket is still moving forward Through/Away from the center of Earth Gravity.    The 2nd stage is ignited as soon as the first stage's retros are kicked in.  I *THINK* it was discovered that there was no need for Ullage because the fuel had not had a chance to MOVE AWAY from the engine as it was "pinned" in place by the Inertia of it's own mass.

 

Summation:   Now if it had coasted for many many seconds or minutes or any amount of time that an outside force could impart it's own vector of acceleration... then Ullage would still be needed.  Thus we are left with the nearly zero delay of ignition from 1st stage separation, Inertia + acceleration of earth based gravity invalidating the need for Ullage on the S-II stage.

Edited by Pappystein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would anyone know why when you use the guidance units on a rocket it causes it to go absolutely haywire? I put one on one of my rockets and now it can barely get 600ft off the ground before turning  aggressively and slamming back into the ground. Unless they are specifically tied too the rocket in the name and should only be used correspondingly?

Edited by Son of Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

So, somehow this lil cutie got deleted 2 years ago right after it was revamped and never was released. It is now on GitHub, will be in the next release.

 

Funny, a few months ago I was making a little science probe and was wondering why I couldn't find that little guy.  Thanks for bringing it back, bud!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Son of Man said:

Would anyone know why when you use the guidance units on a rocket it causes it to go absolutely haywire? I put one on one of my rockets and now it can barely get 600ft off the ground before turning  aggressively and slamming back into the ground. Unless they are specifically tied too the rocket in the name and should only be used correspondingly?

Are they upside down?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Friznit said:

Are they upside down?

They are not, tried the other way and it still causes the rocket to lose control very quickly.  Did some more testing and it is only with SAS enabled. Flies straight up just fine without SAS but as soon as I turn SAS on it starts spinning and losing control. At first I thought maybe it is top heavy (which it is a bit) but it doesn't explain why it loses control as soon as I turn SAS on.  Tried removing all control surfaces and fins just in case but still ended up with the same result.  The only thing that worked was removing the whole top section past the fairing base and the fairing itself, then it would stop losing control when SAS is turned on. So I double checked everything in that section which was the Nose Cone, 4 battery packs, 2 antennas, 2 service bays, top filled with science instruments and Kerbal Engineering System part, bottom filled with more science instruments, Science Jr in the middle between the bays, followed by Thor X400 fuel tank and 48-7S Spark engine. Too my knowledge (which isn't much lol, new-ish at KSP) none of that would seem to mess with the guidance unit this much or at all? The guidance unit itself is clipped inside the Thor Upper Stage fuel tank, directly below the fairing base.

Here is the rocket in question:

 

Edited by Son of Man
Extra details
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Son of Man said:

They are not, tried the other way and it still causes the rocket to lose control very quickly.  Did some more testing and it is only with SAS enabled. Flies straight up just fine without SAS but as soon as I turn SAS on it starts spinning and losing control. At first I thought maybe it is top heavy (which it is a bit) but it doesn't explain why it loses control as soon as I turn SAS on.  Tried removing all control surfaces and fins just in case but still ended up with the same result.  The only thing that worked was removing the whole top section past the fairing base and the fairing itself, then it would stop losing control when SAS is turned on. So I double checked everything in that section which was the Nose Cone, 4 battery packs, 2 antennas, 2 service bays, top filled with science instruments and Kerbal Engineering System part, bottom filled with more science instruments, Science Jr in the middle between the bays, followed by Thor X400 fuel tank and 48-7S Spark engine. Too my knowledge (which isn't much lol, new-ish at KSP) none of that would seem to mess with the guidance unit this much or at all? The guidance unit itself is clipped inside the Thor Upper Stage fuel tank, directly below the fairing base.

Here is the rocket in question:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

I ran into a similar problem a while back while trying to fly a Lunar Orbiter on an Atlas Agena. I would launch and the rocket would promptly flip upside down and crash. I was stumped because I had just flown a Ranger mission on a very similar rocket with no problems. I finally asked for help here and a poster revealed that the Lunar Orbiter is essentially assembled upside down in the VAB and (correctly) mounted on the rocket that way. If it remains as the root part then the rocket will think it is inverted and will try to correct that immediately upon launch. The offered solution was to reset the "Control from Here" to the Agena guidance section (or make it the root part) prior to launch. Once that was pointed out to me it made immediate sense, but I will admit that it wasn't intuitive in the beginning. From your description above it sounds like you have covered all the bases, but I wrote this to point out that it may be something subtle and unintuitive that is causing your rocket to crash.

Link to comment
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...