CobaltWolf

[1.8.1][1.7.3] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.6.2 "титан" 24/Nov/2019)

Recommended Posts

Can anyone please point me at a MM patch that disables engine spooling? I swear I saw it somewhere in this thread.

Spooling was fun at first, but now I'm kinda tired of it, especially on LR-91. This thing messes with MJ's ascent guidance too much (the latter does not shut down the engines at the end, it simply throttles them down - which can lead to botched orbit).

EDIT: Nevermind, found it. Back to precise GLVs...

Edited by biohazard15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ran into the NaN kraken! Here is where it started in the log. Lots of repeats after that. 

 

recalculating orbit for bluedog.Vega.Avionics (Scout): Kerbin ( Update mode TRACK_Phys )
rPos: [-1630121.78137583, 951.445196308118, 463325.01558973]   rVel: [-1050.74282255729, 3.37440912728259, -3702.10783409636] |3848.33396173855|
 
(Filename: C:/buildslave/unity/build/artifacts/generated/common/runtime/DebugBindings.gen.cpp Line: 51)

recalculated orbit for bluedog.Vega.Avionics (Scout): Sun ( UT: 10220609.5316559 )
rPos: [NaN, NaN, NaN]   rVel: [NaN, NaN, NaN] |NaN|
Delta: [NaN, NaN, NaN] / [NaN, NaN, NaN]
 
(Filename: C:/buildslave/unity/build/artifacts/generated/common/runtime/DebugBindings.gen.cpp Line: 51)

[OD] <--- OnDemandStorage.DisableBodyCBMaps destroying Kerbin
 
(Filename: C:/buildslave/unity/build/artifacts/generated/common/runtime/DebugBindings.gen.cpp Line: 51)

Look rotation viewing vector is zero
 
(Filename:  Line: 92)

Look rotation viewing vector is zero
 
(Filename:  Line: 92)

Look rotation viewing vector is zero
 
(Filename:  Line: 92)

Infinity or NaN floating point numbers appear when calculating the transform matrix for a Collider. Scene hierarchy path "Panel0/bluedog.Pioneer6.BottomAntenna/model/Bluedog_DB/Parts/ProbeExpansion/bluedog_Pioneer6_BottomAntenna(Clone)/Pioneer6_BottomAntenna/null2/pCylinder40"
 
(Filename:  Line: 179)

This happened after loading my saved game after starting KSP and attempting to move my craft.

Edited by subyng

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@CobaltWolf Would it be possible to add nodes to the Castor 4s and GEMs similar to Castor 1/2s so we can attach them to the new decouplers? While it is currently possible to do so with some difficulty, when launched they jiggle themselves apart and explode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/4/2019 at 2:23 PM, blowfish said:

Messing around with the new Thor/Delta parts (and re-creating launchers from my last RO career)

  Reveal hidden contents

v3XvqWz.jpg

ydC5dFt.png

2ia1dan.png

VnQdNpT.png

TPhbi0W.jpg

K79GMSI.png

3RA8Y6L.png

fYvK1Nv.png

JKWLi0t.png

 

On 11/4/2019 at 2:45 PM, blowfish said:

Well it's got an X-405-H based kerolox 2nd stage right now, so I would expect performance to be somewhat lower than something Centaur-based.  Probably roughly equivalent to Atlas-Vega (no balloon tanks but also actually dropping the booster tankage)

That's awesome, and makes me really want to work on Vega...

 

17 hours ago, MotokiKuN said:

H-I (kinda) made with new Thor parts

Neat! I wonder if it would look better to use the new miniskirt and sling the avionics underneath, so it hangs above the HOSS tank.

 

17 hours ago, subyng said:

Ran into the NaN kraken! Here is where it started in the log. Lots of repeats after that.

This happened after loading my saved game after starting KSP and attempting to move my craft.

That's odd... and I don't think that part has ever caused issues before?

 

12 hours ago, sslaptnhablhat said:

@CobaltWolf Would it be possible to add nodes to the Castor 4s and GEMs similar to Castor 1/2s so we can attach them to the new decouplers? While it is currently possible to do so with some difficulty, when launched they jiggle themselves apart and explode.

The Castor IVs are likely getting a fresh redux to get rid of the fat black lines and such. I never intended the new decoupler to be used with the GEMs (they mount directly into the boattail), but you're right that it shouldn't be causing issues. I'll look into it but I don't know about nodes. I'm aware of the strange issues that people have been having trying to attach things to them (flipping around to the back of the decoupler and stuff)

 

 

Coming soon to a hotfix near you! I realized I didn't do something I promised to do - finish Jso's IDCSP satellite and the associated hardware. I wonder if people will be able to find other uses for the mount once it's done, the thing is really modular!

86qO0Fn.png

31268435787_1e05b278cb_b.jpg
130603-F-IN001-016.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Coming soon to a hotfix near you! I realized I didn't do something I promised to do - finish Jso's IDCSP satellite and the associated hardware. I wonder if people will be able to find other uses for the mount once it's done, the thing is really modular!

86qO0Fn.png

yeaaaahhh boooooi, an entire LEO communications constellation on a single launch!!!

@Pappystein,I did the math, the magic number is 194.094 dB

Spoiler

Was looking for somethings at enginneringtoolbox and (accidentally) found the Sound level for a giver pressure amplitude Ps. 

L = 10 Log(Ps²/Pref²)
Pref = 2E-5 Pa
make Ps = 101325 Pa and ta daaaa, 194.094 dB

Also, dB for sounds measures the pressure wave amplitude, so the amplitude doubles with a 6dB increase. Power will double with a 3dB increase 

 

Edited by Marcelo Silveira

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vulcan ACES 564 Analog

hKAukLl.jpg

Vulcan ACES will use the same nomenclature as Atlas it seems. (Fairing size) (# of SRBs) (Number of RL-10s on the second stage) for those not well versed in the system. So that means, 5 = 5.4 meter fairing, 6 = 6 GEM-63XLs, 4 = 4 RL-10C-1.

Some fun facts about the Advanced Cryogenic Evolved Stage:
ULA is planning to have it be fully reusable... ish. They plan on giving it the ability to dock in space with another ACES module. This would allow refueling of stages in orbit. This would in essences allow ULA to launch heavier payloads. They would launch the payload into LEO, and use either an ACES already in orbit, or send a second no payload ACES up to orbit, rendezvous with the payload fitted ACES, dock, refuel, then send the payload fitted ACES on to its designated target. 
ULA plans to make the ACES have a lifetime of weeks, not hours. 
ACES will be the same length as Centaur V, but wider at 5.4 meters. 
ACES will use the RL-10 in a 1 to 4 setup. 

Edited by GoldForest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to find all these launch towers I see in the pictures. Are they part of BDB or is there a separate mod for them?

Share this post


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

ACES will be the same length as Centaur V, but wider at 5.4 meters. 
ACES will use the RL-10 in a 1 to 4 setup. 

Tis' incorrect.

Centaur V is 5.4m, the same diameter as Vulcan, and can also have up to 4 RL-10s.
As seen in this document, from the 8th of April,  this year, Vulcan Centaur is only shown with a 5m tank.

unknown.png

This is also supported by the ULA animation from the Dreamchaser LV announcement earlier this year.

Awaiting response from Tory on engines, but i am 99% confident in my statement

Edited by Barzon
Adding evidence.

Share this post


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

Trying to find all these launch towers I see in the pictures. Are they part of BDB or is there a separate mod for them?

They are from @AlphaMensae's fantastic Modular Launch Pads mod! :)

 

1 hour ago, Barzon said:

Wrong and Wrong. 

Centaur V is 5.4m, the same diameter as Vulcan, and can also have up to 4 RL-10s.

I mean, yes, but could probably be phrased a bit nicer (and preferably explained in a bit more depth w/sources - there's a lot of bad ACES info out there if only from how often the plan for it has changed)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IDCSP with mounting structure

5Z54BiG.png
3xUFVP1.png

 

So here you can see the building blocks of it - you start with the basic unit on the left. As I understand it (I haven't gone through the cfgs @Jso sent me), there's a B9 switch to enable the "outer frame" in the middle.

There's an additional B9 switch to enable the "riser" on the bottom there - that adds the 1.2m ring to the bottom along with (I think) the nodes for attaching the two extra basic mounts to the sides.

And, yes - that means this structure (minus the extra side mounted cores) will also fit nicely into a 1.5m or 1.25m fairing.

GqChvWZ.png

 

Each successive level needs to be flipped 180 degrees before being placed. This also allows the probes to nest tighter than they otherwise could.

Rr7Ij0S.png

 

The topmost mount shouldn't have the "outer frame", though sadly it creates a slight visual issue with the middle strut below not really connecting to anything.

ADGT1n9.png

 

And just to show, here's what I think it looks like with the two extra side mounted frames.

vBLQqEY.png

Share this post


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

Tis' incorrect.

Centaur V is 5.4m, the same diameter as Vulcan, and can also have up to 4 RL-10s.
As seen in this document, from the 8th of April,  this year, Vulcan Centaur is only shown with a 5m tank.

 

This is also supported by the ULA animation from the Dreamchaser LV announcement earlier this year.

Awaiting response from Tory on engines, but i am 99% confident in my statement

Well I was going of the multitude of pictures that showed the a skinny Centaur on top fo Vulcan as well as a comparison of DCSS, Atlas V Centaur and Vulcan ACES.

Are they making 2 seperate Centaurs now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Centaur V (aka Vulcan Centaur as of last year) is the successor to Centaur III or Common Centaur and as used on Atlas V.  It uses some of the tech planned for ACES (still in development), though most notably not the funky Integrated Vehicle Fluids (IVF) that will reuse boil off gasses.  Centaur V is designed to match the 5.4m Vulcan core diameter.  ACES is still in the design stage so could yet change, but latest indications suggest it will be 5m diameter.

There have been concept images of Vulcan with Centaur III, Centaur V and ACES kicking around over the last few years so like all things that are still work in progress, we're probably all right and all wrong at the same time!  We can but speculate.

Edited by Friznit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, a couple of problems I've noticed...

1) Gemini lander - barely enough fuel for 2.5x rescale, at least on the Mun. Defintely not enough if you use it as supposed (i.e. using lander tank as launching pad) - you can't reach 20km x 20km orbit with 2nd stage tanks (but you can if you keep "landing" stage and use all its fuel!)

2) Juno IV - still can't reach orbit in 2.5x rescale. Nothing to add there, really. Any fixes inbound, or I can safely delete all these parts? They're useless, you know. Even for Atlas-Vega.

Isn't this mod supposed to be optimised for 2.5x rescale? I've read this many times, I myself play and enjoy this mod in 2.5x rescale, but these little things really bug me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the Juno IV, what are the presicted stage by stage TWRs from Mechjeb/KER? I know that I have had to underfuel one or both of the upper level tanks to get appropriate TWRs. Of course, you could always add 2-4 Castors, which is what I generally did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, sslaptnhablhat said:

That's normal, it uses the IVA of the Big G.

The Kerbal helmets are clipping through the pod which annoys the heck out of me

And there's no exit on the expansion module, is this intentional?

Edited by zit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, zit said:

The Kerbal helmets are clipping through the pod which annoys the heck out of me

And there's no exit on the expansion module, is this intentional?

IVA's take a fair amount of effort to make for something with very little gameplay purpose. As such CobaltWolf has never had the time or inclination to make IVAs given the huge amount of parts he's always had on his plate either for making or revamping.

The IVA's that BDB has are either borrowed from other mods (in a couple of cases), made for him by other people (mostly by those who dont seem to be around anymore) or make use of stock IVAs for parts that match reasonably close with crewed stock parts (eg some of the new station modules).

As mentioned above, the 1.875m "rumble seat" extension re-uses the Big G IVA. If this IVA causes more trouble than its worth, all we can do is remove it for a blank placeholder.

Although If anyone is reading this and would like to volunteer to make proper IVAs, of course your efforts would be greatly appreciated :) 

(I wouldn't hold my breath, the call for help has gone unanswered for a long time.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, zit said:

And there's no exit on the expansion module, is this intentional?

That's as designed - Big G still only has the one door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, biohazard15 said:

So, a couple of problems I've noticed...

1) Gemini lander - barely enough fuel for 2.5x rescale, at least on the Mun. Defintely not enough if you use it as supposed (i.e. using lander tank as launching pad) - you can't reach 20km x 20km orbit with 2nd stage tanks (but you can if you keep "landing" stage and use all its fuel!)

2) Juno IV - still can't reach orbit in 2.5x rescale. Nothing to add there, really. Any fixes inbound, or I can safely delete all these parts? They're useless, you know. Even for Atlas-Vega.

Isn't this mod supposed to be optimised for 2.5x rescale? I've read this many times, I myself play and enjoy this mod in 2.5x rescale, but these little things really bug me.

14 hours ago, Machinique said:

For the Juno IV, what are the presicted stage by stage TWRs from Mechjeb/KER? I know that I have had to underfuel one or both of the upper level tanks to get appropriate TWRs. Of course, you could always add 2-4 Castors, which is what I generally did.

Well, for 1) yeah, it is meant to be optimized for 2.5x... but our balance fella has been out on medical leave for most of the last dev cycle (and continues to be - thoughts out to @Jso! Can't wait for you to be able to use your right arm again!). I know I managed to successfully complete a mission with it in I think 2.7x though - do you know if the saddle/side tanks were partially drained? I think I remember having to transfer remaining fuel from the descent tank into them.

2) So, actually, @Machinique is right - it can't be launched full fueled. To quote Ed Kyle:

Quote

A three-stage Juno IV would weigh up to 62.41 tonnes (137,600 lbs) at liftoff.  Its Jupiter first stage would be loaded with up to 44.5 tonnes (98,100 lbs) of propellant.  The second stage would carry up to 11.14 tonnes (24,550 lbs) of propellant.  The third stage would be loaded with up to 3.4 tonnes (7,500 lbs) of propellant.  Propellant loading would vary depending on the mission type, with maximum upper stage loading for LEO missions and reduced loading for lunar or escape missions.  Reduced upper stage propellant loads would be offset by increased first stage propellant loads, and vice-versa.

Additionally, I'll just add that the Juno IV parts are very old and weren't made to the same standard. They're getting redone this dev cycle, so they'll receive another hard look at balancing. I know the stats of the engines will likely change significantly.

 

11 hours ago, zit said:

Overlay with Leo parts broke

11 hours ago, sslaptnhablhat said:

That's normal, it uses the IVA of the Big G.

11 hours ago, zit said:

The Kerbal helmets are clipping through the pod which annoys the heck out of me

And there's no exit on the expansion module, is this intentional?

11 hours ago, sslaptnhablhat said:

Oh, right... didn't notice that.

10 hours ago, Zorg said:

IVA's take a fair amount of effort to make for something with very little gameplay purpose. As such CobaltWolf has never had the time or inclination to make IVAs given the huge amount of parts he's always had on his plate either for making or revamping.

The IVA's that BDB has are either borrowed from other mods (in a couple of cases), made for him by other people (mostly by those who dont seem to be around anymore) or make use of stock IVAs for parts that match reasonably close with crewed stock parts (eg some of the new station modules).

As mentioned above, the 1.875m "rumble seat" extension re-uses the Big G IVA. If this IVA causes more trouble than its worth, all we can do is remove it for a blank placeholder.

Although If anyone is reading this and would like to volunteer to make proper IVAs, of course your efforts would be greatly appreciated :) 

(I wouldn't hold my breath, the call for help has gone unanswered for a long time.)

6 hours ago, Friznit said:

That's as designed - Big G still only has the one door.

Indeed, I don't make IVAs. If that's a problem for anyone... well, I accept pull requests. :)

 

I'd like to get 1.6.2 out this weekend, so this is a last call for any more bugs or issues in the parts specific to that release!

Also, on a side note, after this weekend my dev time will dramatically drop for the next several weeks. I am planning on streaming all day Sunday (not sure what for, maybe Agena stuff?) and then will have to play it by ear.

 

A mighty Titan 3C delivering an entire LEO comms network to orbit in a single launch...

gE09tfY.png
XRFRlGm.png
GDITtHa.png
eUhYmmX.png
kFEY87k.png
zpACf5w.png
XmBLtDy.png

 

Some more images of the real life Titan 3C-11 launch, credit to Andrew LePage from DrewExMachina for the images.

Spoiler

Titan_IIIC-11_launch.jpg
IDCSP_truss.jpg
Idcspdep.jpg
IDCSP_001.jpg

 

Edited by CobaltWolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

I'd like to get 1.6.2 out this weekend, so this is a last call for any more bugs or issues in the parts specific to that release!

Other than the previously mentioned issue between KJR-Next, 1.8.1 and Launch-clamps + Booster Skirts (maybe you could put a note in the release notes that clearly states that there are a few parts that have un-resolved issues with KJR-Next and you are awaiting return comment from the KJR-Next Developer....)

I vote Good To Go!  

Would LOVE for you to get Agena in the 1.7 Dev cycle.   I had to downgrade my dev build back to 1.6.1/1,6,2 hot-fix due to lacking Agena in the 1.7 Dev build!.    I actually think the Castor Decoupler for Thor is similar enough to the Agena SOT (the erroneously called Droptank) tank separation system, that a scaled down version of that would work for the SOT tanks.  

The only question is are you planning on multiple textures for the GCU to represent the 4+1 flown variants?   (A, B, D, Ascent Agena, and Shuttle Agena)   Obviously the +1 was not flown.

If nothing else I recommend a Skin texture choice of 1) White, 2) Black, 3) Metal, 4) Black + Metal (Check), 5) White + Black (Check)

 

13 hours ago, zit said:

And there's no exit on the expansion module, is this intentional?

Others have covered the IVA portion.   I have some Documentation from the BigG Program.   I did a quick skim through the documents I have and found exactly one reference to an External access port.   Specifically why one was not included.   

The Big-G Family all have a heat shield pass-through point.  And a common access point through the Gemini "Capsule" section.   I put that in quotes because the BigG was always intended to be a SINGLE capsule not a Capsule with a hitchhiker tack welded onto the bottom.     So no Leo/Gemini Heat Shield between the parts.

Any sort of alternative escape would have come through either the  Cockpit portion (the 2 Seat Gemini section in game) or would have gone through some sort of docking apparatus with the Service Module BELOW the BigG.  

In hindsight, this was probably not the best design choice (Even though the program was started AFTER Apollo 1, it seems NASA and McDonnell Douglas, didn't learn all that much from that mistake/accident when they went to work on the BigG design proposal.

 

NOW... There IS a mockup that had huge windows in it.  This was so various agencies (NASA/USAF etc) could look into the Mockup from outside of it.   Those would not have actually been on the real Space Taxi.

Share this post


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.