CobaltWolf

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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Gordon Dry said:
  1. diameter is 1.5m
  2. got no seperation motor

Looks like the RealNames never got updated from the part it was based on. Thanks for the heads up! Keep an eye out for bugs with the stuff in the last release so they can be fixed in the 1.6.2 patch. :)

I gotta head out for today but I hope some people will join me Sunday to see what kind of progress we can make on this Agena stuff... :)
j70NfzI.png
pnypDpY.png
plJpG7D.png
7IhqXYe.png
UWsE1DI.png

Edited by CobaltWolf

Share this post


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

I was using a 2.5m diameter for the Centaur E (which also has sparse details), and I'll probably stick to that. It will probably end up looking a lot like a Delta III with the widened upper stage and GEM 46 boosters.

IDK if ETS and IRL used the same nomenclature for Centaur.  But Centaur E was the 2nd proposed use of Centaur on a Saturn Rocket.   Centaur C, being the previous Centaur.    I have various documents that give VARIOUS sizes for these two rockets.   I think The Big Book of War has the most comprehensive data points on Centaur and even it is a bit weak with both Centaur C and Centaur E.

I have data that Centaur C is enlarged in diameter vs Centaur D and uses a larger engine.   However NO hard data on the enlargement (is it just a larger PLF or is it the entire tankage...  Is it just an improved insulation...)  And the engine enlargement could (as Cobaltwolf has rightfully pointed out) been a THRUST enlargement to the standard RL10.   Another source says Centaur E is just a Centaur C updated with Centaur D-1 Avionics, Engines and Insulation.  

 

*PERSONAL OPINION*   In lieu of actual FACTs on either variant.  Whoever makes bespoke parts for them first gets to decided?!?   :P:D    Much Like Saturn C-2 and Saturn C-3... the DAY a document was generated on determined what the Configuration Centaur took.   This is COMMON in the world of "throw a proposal at something and hope it will stick."   Prior to the use of Columbium/Niobium or Carbon-Carbon to make bell extensions a physically LARGER engine actually makes sense for a Hydrolox Engine.   With the advent of the newer materials to make the engine out of however.....  

 

 

BTW modern Atlas V Centaur is actually Centaur D-3A!   (AKA Centaur III.)   ULA changed the name since no more "non D-1 Derived" Centaurs would fly.

 

Coincidentally, the Fat Delta, as described in ETS was discussed last night in the Dev Stream.   Is that what prompted you to do these awesome pictures?

 

 

24 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

<Snipped Post and Photos>

 

NICE looking Agenas.  I really love the realism you have brought to these models.    You mentioned yesterday interstage was going to be the way to go.   Is there any chance of Saturn PLA style interstage for Titan-Agena and Thor-Agena Interface?   I ask because I tend to pack stuff onto the Engine mount (OGIO Solar Panels, Extra Batteries etc) and the engine shroud would damage them on separation.  

 

Once I re-integrate Tweakscale and these make it to the Dev branch, I plan on mocking up a SOT equipped Agena and flying it.   (Tweak-scaling down the Agena D tankage from it's 0.9375m Dia down to 0.75m Dia)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Jso said:

Historically they would be jettisoned at intervals while Transtage accelerated, and then allowed to disperse over the next few months.

I did that, but the decoupling power was so low that the 4 lowest IDCSP satellites collided with the transtage during that acceleration.
The decoupling occured via action group - but that should make no difference I guess?

btw the transtage got no plume, just a heat color animation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I will test with just doubling the ejectionForce from 12 to 24 in ModuleDecouple of GameData\Bluedog_DB\Parts\Titan\IDCSP\bluedog_IDCSP_Truss.cfg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Gordon Dry said:

I did that, but the decoupling power was so low that the 4 lowest IDCSP satellites collided with the transtage during that acceleration.
The decoupling occured via action group - but that should make no difference I guess?

btw the transtage got no plume, just a heat color animation.

There should be a mesh toggle for the base that will raise it off the floor a little. Accelerate under minimum rcs power. Alternatively, accelerate, coast, jettison, accelerate, coast, jettison, repeat... Any difference in velocity (orbital period) will allow them to separate. It takes some time to get coverage. The higher the orbit the more time. The real constellation used several launches with over 20 satellites a little below geosynchronous altitude.

Share this post


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

Odd behaviour.

I wanted to attach Castors to Titan Tank, so I first radially attached two bluedog.Castor.RadialDecoupler

As I tried to attach either bluedog.Scout.Castor.Radial or bluedog.Delta.GEM40 to those decouplers, the boosters wanted to radially attach to the decoupler itself. On one side of the tank.

During this the log was spammed with


NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
  at KSP.UI.Screens.EditorActionGroups.ConstructGroupActionList (System.Int32 overrideGroup) [0x0021c] in <9d71e4043e394d78a6cf9193ad011698>:0 
  at KSP.UI.Screens.EditorActionGroups.ConstructActionList () [0x00412] in <9d71e4043e394d78a6cf9193ad011698>:0 
  at KSP.UI.Screens.EditorActionGroups.ConstructLists (System.Boolean full) [0x0001c] in <9d71e4043e394d78a6cf9193ad011698>:0 
  at KSP.UI.Screens.EditorActionGroups.ClearSelection (System.Boolean reconstruct) [0x00095] in <9d71e4043e394d78a6cf9193ad011698>:0 
  at ClickThroughFix.CBTMonitor.Update () [0x00084] in <3288816d0d5c44638658cf21b1ae032b>:0 
 
(Filename: <9d71e4043e394d78a6cf9193ad011698> Line: 0)

@linuxgurugamer as well

Full log and stuff:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/atz9ebst30lkuka/player.log and stuff 2019-11-08-01.zip?dl=1

This happened in the editor?  Could you do a video so I can see where it happens?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is anyone else having trouble with the Centaur and Vega avionics parts overheating within the fairing when used with the 2.5m Atlas V and Commercial Titan III PF fairing bases? This does not seem to happen with the 1.875m Centaur PF fairing base.

I made a monstrosity with all of the affected parts to demonstrate the problem:

Spoiler

PxmYkHh.png

It's a bit like a Rat King... but with rockets. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Only the avionics parts - inside the fairings - are overheating. Everything else is fine. I'm at a loss as to why this is happening or how to prevent it. I have to use the nudge tool to lower the avionics into the fairing base where it's supposed to be, so maybe that's part of the problem? I don't know. I'm also not sure if this also happens with the normal BDB fairings, or just the PF ones, I'll check in a bit.

Edit: I only have this problem with the PF versions of BDB fairings and not the standard ones.

Edited by Mudwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Mudwig said:

I have to use the nudge tool to lower the avionics into the fairing base where it's supposed to be, so maybe that's part of the problem?

That would be my bet. It's easy enough to test, try not nudging it down and see what happens.

PF makes an assumption that the fairing base is always at or above the bottom of the fairing sides. It makes sunken bases like those tricky.

Share this post


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

IDK if ETS and IRL used the same nomenclature for Centaur.  But Centaur E was the 2nd proposed use of Centaur on a Saturn Rocket.   Centaur C, being the previous Centaur.    I have various documents that give VARIOUS sizes for these two rockets.   I think The Big Book of War has the most comprehensive data points on Centaur and even it is a bit weak with both Centaur C and Centaur E.

I have data that Centaur C is enlarged in diameter vs Centaur D and uses a larger engine.   However NO hard data on the enlargement (is it just a larger PLF or is it the entire tankage...  Is it just an improved insulation...)  And the engine enlargement could (as Cobaltwolf has rightfully pointed out) been a THRUST enlargement to the standard RL10.   Another source says Centaur E is just a Centaur C updated with Centaur D-1 Avionics, Engines and Insulation.  

 

*PERSONAL OPINION*   In lieu of actual FACTs on either variant.  Whoever makes bespoke parts for them first gets to decided?!?   :P:D    Much Like Saturn C-2 and Saturn C-3... the DAY a document was generated on determined what the Configuration Centaur took.   This is COMMON in the world of "throw a proposal at something and hope it will stick."   Prior to the use of Columbium/Niobium or Carbon-Carbon to make bell extensions a physically LARGER engine actually makes sense for a Hydrolox Engine.   With the advent of the newer materials to make the engine out of however.....  

 

 

BTW modern Atlas V Centaur is actually Centaur D-3A!   (AKA Centaur III.)   ULA changed the name since no more "non D-1 Derived" Centaurs would fly.

 

Coincidentally, the Fat Delta, as described in ETS was discussed last night in the Dev Stream.   Is that what prompted you to do these awesome pictures?

 

The ETS Centaur E has scant details (that I could find). It has the same mass as the Centaur G. As for the engines, they have a lower thrust that the RL-10A4, but higher ISP, and are certainly an in-universe RL-10 variant. I decided to go with the 2.5m diameter because I don't think you'd see the same shape of the Centaur G without a shuttle program or a rocket similar to the TItan with a relatively smaller core diameter but high TWR from the large boosters. The wider base also gave me room to use the R-10Bs, which give similar ISP numbers to the wiki. A squatter Centaur also makes sense with the fairing sizes on the Saturn Multibody, as it would leave more room for the payload. As for the inspiration, I was just reading through ETS and wanted to try reverse engineering the rocket from the details that were given. I was not on the dev stream.

 

Anyways, here's the Delta 5060 with a slightly widened fairing. It didn't actually get to orbit with the payload, but I just need to get more experience with the PVG settings and the new thrust balance in general.

 

Pics:

Spoiler

yGPdrSA.jpg

hQ5PucO.jpg

4Z0AzP6.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Jso said:

That would be my bet. It's easy enough to test, try not nudging it down and see what happens.

PF makes an assumption that the fairing base is always at or above the bottom of the fairing sides. It makes sunken bases like those tricky.

Yeah. I just tried it with the avionics part floating above and it had no heating issues. It looks dumb, but it works. I guess I could just edit the max temperature of the avionics parts to match the fairing bases. I think that would fix it, more-or-less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Pappystein said:

IDK if ETS and IRL used the same nomenclature for Centaur.  But Centaur E was the 2nd proposed use of Centaur on a Saturn Rocket.   Centaur C, being the previous Centaur.    I have various documents that give VARIOUS sizes for these two rockets.   I think The Big Book of War has the most comprehensive data points on Centaur and even it is a bit weak with both Centaur C and Centaur E.

I have data that Centaur C is enlarged in diameter vs Centaur D and uses a larger engine.   However NO hard data on the enlargement (is it just a larger PLF or is it the entire tankage...  Is it just an improved insulation...)  And the engine enlargement could (as Cobaltwolf has rightfully pointed out) been a THRUST enlargement to the standard RL10.   Another source says Centaur E is just a Centaur C updated with Centaur D-1 Avionics, Engines and Insulation. 

*PERSONAL OPINION*   In lieu of actual FACTs on either variant.  Whoever makes bespoke parts for them first gets to decided?!?   :P:D    Much Like Saturn C-2 and Saturn C-3... the DAY a document was generated on determined what the Configuration Centaur took.   This is COMMON in the world of "throw a proposal at something and hope it will stick."   Prior to the use of Columbium/Niobium or Carbon-Carbon to make bell extensions a physically LARGER engine actually makes sense for a Hydrolox Engine.   With the advent of the newer materials to make the engine out of however.....  

BTW modern Atlas V Centaur is actually Centaur D-3A!   (AKA Centaur III.)   ULA changed the name since no more "non D-1 Derived" Centaurs would fly.

Coincidentally, the Fat Delta, as described in ETS was discussed last night in the Dev Stream.   Is that what prompted you to do these awesome pictures?

8 hours ago, Machinique said:

The ETS Centaur E has scant details (that I could find). It has the same mass as the Centaur G. As for the engines, they have a lower thrust that the RL-10A4, but higher ISP, and are certainly an in-universe RL-10 variant. I decided to go with the 2.5m diameter because I don't think you'd see the same shape of the Centaur G without a shuttle program or a rocket similar to the TItan with a relatively smaller core diameter but high TWR from the large boosters. The wider base also gave me room to use the R-10Bs, which give similar ISP numbers to the wiki. A squatter Centaur also makes sense with the fairing sizes on the Saturn Multibody, as it would leave more room for the payload. As for the inspiration, I was just reading through ETS and wanted to try reverse engineering the rocket from the details that were given. I was not on the dev stream.

Anyways, here's the Delta 5060 with a slightly widened fairing. It didn't actually get to orbit with the payload, but I just need to get more experience with the PVG settings and the new thrust balance in general.

Pics:

Delta 4000 is essentially a 1.875m (forgive me for using KSP scales here) core with 3 H-1Ds on it, and a Centaur D. Centaur E is *exactly* the same as a Centaur T (to the point of simply using photos of a Centaur G+ in the thread), and was originally developed for Saturn 1C. I believe 4000 uses 0-12 Castor IVs, and 5000 uses a same number of GEM-40s.

Also, Pappy, Centaur C was one of the developmental versions :P

 

14 hours ago, Pappystein said:

NICE looking Agenas.  I really love the realism you have brought to these models.    You mentioned yesterday interstage was going to be the way to go.   Is there any chance of Saturn PLA style interstage for Titan-Agena and Thor-Agena Interface?   I ask because I tend to pack stuff onto the Engine mount (OGIO Solar Panels, Extra Batteries etc) and the engine shroud would damage them on separation. 

Once I re-integrate Tweakscale and these make it to the Dev branch, I plan on mocking up a SOT equipped Agena and flying it.   (Tweak-scaling down the Agena D tankage from it's 0.9375m Dia down to 0.75m Dia)

I'd rather just make it so that the interstage can get decoupled without breaking stuff :)

I *am* doing dedicated SOT parts if you want to wait.

 

Share this post


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

Also, Pappy, Centaur C was one of the developmental versions :P

I *am* doing dedicated SOT parts if you want to wait.

 

It is True that Centaur C ended up as a Dev version.   But it was originally proposed (before the drawn out Dev/troubleshooting cycle and re-assignment to Lewis for Centaur) as Saturn I's Fifth Stage.  I have two drawings supposedly from ABMA) showing Saturn C-I or S-I with a S-V upper stage and in parenthesis (same hand writing) Centaur-C next to S-V.  Somewhere in my collection I have an old document off BBoW that stated Centaur A was Static Test, Centaur B would be the one and only Test Flight (and fly on an Atlas,) and Centaur C would be the production Saturn S-V stage and Centaur D would be the production Centaur to fly on Atlas.   Obviously no actual need for a Satellite lift of the size Saturn I could loft actually came to be needed.   Pegasus was designed as a secondary experiment on "IF" Saturn would fly as designed.   And YES while the S-IV stage uses RL-10s it is NOT a Centaur.   It does not use Insulated Balloon tanks. but rather standard Stringer construction with Insulation. 

And Obviously the Centaur B failure and subsequently the complete restructuring and redesign of the program all those letter assignments went out the window!   The problem is NASA and the Govt in their Wisdom likes to re-use designations because they are expedient *this is what we were talking about all the time... ignore that everything has changed* mentality.

I know you are doing SOT...  and I can't wait so bad I have to do it with non-bespoke parts.      :D    Then again I installed Tweakscale and got the fatal warning that is mentioned on that thread....   So /sigh I will probably have to wait.  Please don't bump em up on my behalf.  I am mature enough to wait if I can't get Tweakscale to work....   BUT If I CAN get Tweakscale to work....   Muhohahahaha  :)  :cool:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @Machinique & @Pappystein, for these informations. I wasn't aware about the "rescale factor", lot  of things will seem more logic now ;)

@Mudwig, you said that the official playload weight include the agena service module. Is it a an Agena particularity or other upper stage add some weight to the official playload number (by official I talk about the number we can find on wikipedia) ?

Can't wait to see this this agena rework Cobalt ^^

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Carni35 The Agena upper stage itself was the spacecraft bus. Thor-Agena A was not a very capable launch vehicle, so there were significant limits in terms of what they could stack on top. the Agena is part of the spacecraft, so it's mass is part, well... the majority, of the spacecraft's mass. The Corona C satellites varied in terms of components and objectives, so there is no single "official" payload mass. The one used on Discoverer 13 didn't even have cameras or film on it.

According to this site...

http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_2/United_States_4/Thor-Agena/Description/Frame.htm

...Thor-Agena A had a capacity to LEO of 860kg ( not sure if that's calculated for a highly inclined orbit or not ). That, plus the dry mass of the Agena A - 890kg by the numbers given = 1.75t, so that gives you an idea about how heavy the KH-1 satellites could possibly be. These numbers probably aren't exact, so there is a little bit of wiggle room, but likely not very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Request for 1.6.2: please take a look at Mercury LES. It cannot save craft at launch pad - not enough fuel\thrust to put it at safe altitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A new tower I made, it's the Extra-Large General Modular Service Tower, but it was designed for a certain rocket.... :D 

TzZcN6W.png

5jGy0gL.png

laIMROw.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do I download the craft section in GitHub? im confused.. Im so new to modding tho pls go easy on me :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Hadron27 said:

How do I download the craft section in GitHub? im confused.. Im so new to modding tho pls go easy on me :(

1) Go to Github from link in OP

2) Click "Bluedog-Design-Bureau" link on top of the page

3) Click the "Clone or download" green button, choose "Download ZIP", download ZIP

4) Open the ZIP you just downloaded, go to "Craft Files" folder, and here you go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/7/2019 at 8:35 AM, CobaltWolf said:

zpACf5w.png

I know this is kind of late, but to me the satellites and the truss structure are too small. In all the concept artist renditions you've shown, they show the truss structure is the same width as the Transstage. And I think the real life photo in your same posts shows the truss baseplate is wider than you have it in game. 

Why the size difference?

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.