CobaltWolf

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

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, derega16 said:

I'm confuse about titan III and IV launch sequence. Both part description and real launch sequence doccument said the mainengine is air start 10s before SRB seperation but nearly all real launch photos I found show it start at launch on the pad with march diamonds between two SRB plumes. Which one is more accurate and how much performance difference between these two?

Just to pile on here, the core stage was never ground lit with SRBs. The pair of solids can lift several hundred tons more than the rocket with it's max theoretical payload so there's no scenario where you would need to ground ignite the core. We've all asked the same question - what you're seeing is exhaust gasses interacting with the airflow behind the core.

Share this post


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

IDCSP sats being deployed, JNSQ 6.6k orbit, probably not deployed how they're supposed to be (deployed one every couple of seconds :D) and I doubt the orbit is realistic, but they do serve their purpose!
FxluPGf.png

I'd like to mention that, should anyone want to reproduce the proper orbits as they were actually flown, the History of Spaceflight contracts have been made to provide the correct orbits and will scale from the real thing, so you'd get a properly sized orbit relative to the world size you're using. Which when using BDB, should be a perfect match in JNSQ with regard to part performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, derega16 said:
3 hours ago, derega16 said:

I'm confuse about titan III and IV launch sequence. Both part description and real launch sequence doccument said the mainengine is air start 10s before SRB seperation but nearly all real launch photos I found show it start at launch on the pad with march diamonds between two SRB plumes. Which one is more accurate and how much performance difference between these two?

Might be SRB Plume interaction but it looks like LR-87 is already lit

Ok so yes there is smoke coming out of the LR87.   But if you look at a Titan II or IIIA or IIIB Launch (or any derivative of the 3B)  You cal clearly see LESS smoke, and much less Vigorous.  Back in the Titan Dev cycle I broached this same question off thread.  Some of the same documents above were shown to me.   Being a bit of an aerodynamicist I looked at it like an airplane and realized that the "non energetic" smoke from the SRMs was in deed being pulled up into the bell, cooling, and then falling out of the engine bells.   And while I think Zorg had a good idea about the ablator, that would require a fire IN the LR87 engine so I doubt that is a.... significant... cause of the smoke you see.  

On the subject of the LR87s sucking in the outside air into the bell during launch.   I imagine the negative effect of this (aka DRAG) is impactful, than the extra mass to enclose the engine bells.

 

PS I used the same two photos...   Look at the Titan 23B that Zorg Posted... The difference between ON and OFF of the LR87 is pretty obvious at that point.

 

HOWEVER,   There HAVE been proposals for LEO launches that used both the UA1205/6/7s and Ground Lit LR87s.   NONE of them have ever been ORDERED or FLEW however.

3 hours ago, Morphisor said:

I built another couple of early rocket reproductions today, hope they live up to your expectations @Pappystein ;)

While again very limited by the tech level which hasn't yet changed, I did add the excellent CNAR parts by @DylanSemrau. They really fit in well and are very scalable.

 

First up, the prototype Hermes missile, a V-2 derivative. I think I managed to get pretty close; but the scale is a little too big by comparison to achieve this. Ingame, it's a combination of some Etoh parts and CNAR. It's also scary fast.

Hermes_A-1_Test_Rockets_-_GPN-2000-00006

 

Ahh yes, the old GE Knockoff of the Wasserfall Surface to Air Missile!   Took me a long time to realize that this (Hermes,) was visually a near perfect knockoff of the Wasserfall and not actually related (other than how it looked)   Hermes was started in 1944...   Wasserfall flew in 1943 (I think) and GE basically used a reverse engineered V-2 engine (the Wasserfall is Hypergolic and does not run on Methanol/LOX)

Bundesarchiv_Bild_141-1898,_Peenem%C3%BC

Oh and here is a Wasserfall today (NMUASF)

Wasserfall_SAM.jpg

And yes the twin engined behemoth with no tails on it to the back left is a MiG-25....  Likely the one that was buried in the Sand in Iraq back in 2003.   Also hard to tell but the Solid Rocket motor Appears to be the SR-118 from a LGM-118 Peacekeeper (aka the MX,) which is in BDB as a variant of the Castor 120.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pappystein said:

And yes the twin engined behemoth with no tails on it to the back left is a MiG-25....  Likely the one that was buried in the Sand in Iraq back in 2003.   Also hard to tell but the Solid Rocket motor Appears to be the SR-118 from a LGM-118 Peacekeeper (aka the MX,) which is in BDB as a variant of the Castor 120.

That's definitely an SR-118, I assume the one that is now stacked as a Peacekeeper in the big... silo-dome with the other missiles. @TimothyC probably knows more.

Share this post


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

That's definitely an SR-118, I assume the one that is now stacked as a Peacekeeper in the big... silo-dome with the other missiles. @TimothyC probably knows more.

Yep,  Cause I just realized that is an SR-119 stage almost completely hidden by the MiG-25

 

Share this post


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

Back in the Titan Dev cycle I broached this same question off thread.  Some of the same documents above were shown to me.   Being a bit of an aerodynamicist I looked at it like an airplane and realized that the "non energetic" smoke from the SRMs was in deed being pulled up into the bell, cooling, and then falling out of the engine bells.   And while I think Zorg had a good idea about the ablator, that would require a fire IN the LR87 engine so I doubt that is a.... significant... cause of the smoke you see.  

We're all sort of guessing at this point I suppose but are all in agreement the engine is not lit. Your explanation makes a great deal of sense though and is perhaps even connected to this point in the Titan IV guide?

Screenshot_2020-04-06_19.02.09_-_Copy.pn

 

It would appear the thrust chambers were sealed until ignition which would make sense if SRB smoke was being pulled up into the engine

Share this post


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

It would appear the thrust chambers were sealed until ignition which would make sense if SRB smoke was being pulled up into the engine

Two answers Zorg, yes we are all guessing!  Yes, the Thrust chamber is closed off, however the bell is not.  The Bell is open (you can clearly see that in some of the launch shots.)  Somewhere I have a picture of a thrust chamber closure device and if I had to guess based on other objects in the picture it is  ~8"/203mm in diameter.   I think it is in one of the documents on the development of the AJ-9 engines during the original Titan III deployment cycle, and their use as test mules for the future MOL AJ-11 engines.   It is basically a tampion for the narrowest part of the engine's exhaust throat.  A Snug fit but easy to "pop" out when Engine is ignited, just like a Cannon's tampion. 

Fun facts about the Aerojet Engines on Titan:

  • All Titan IIIA, B and C rockets, except the Very first Titan III launch, flew on LR87-AJ-9 and LR91-AJ-9 Engines.   They are slightly uprated from the -AJ-5 engines of Titan II. (and there is a patch for them in the Extras!)
  • MOST of these engines (especially on the Titan IIIC launches) tested parts that would latter be used on the LR87 and LR91 AJ-11 families. <- hence why a lot of sources call all Titan III engines xxxx-AJ-11 variants.
  • NONE of these rockets actually flew with an all up LR87-AJ-11 or LR-91-AJ11.  

Things that were tested were:

  1. Combustion chamber placement (moving the combustion chambers outward by a few inches to allow for bigger expansion ratio bells)
  2. Hydraulic actuators (bigger ones were needed for the future AJ-11s!)
  3. Changes to structural materials (the metal making up the engine mounting hardware)
  4. LR87-AJ-11 bell extension was flown once (or at-least proposed to fly) on LR87-AJ-9 Combustion chambers but overall the thrust would have been that of the AJ-5 with a slight improvement to vacuum ISP only. (yes the thrust would have gone down slightly)

 

 

Share this post


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

UJeKtni.png

<3

I'm pretty sure there's rules against inappropriate images here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Cobalt has just added the Titan 3A paint scheme (Titan second stage and Transtage shroud textures switches) just a little while ago and I've just added the Titan prototype conical shroud to go with it. 

The conical shroud was used on Titan 3A and most 3Cs. The last few 3Cs flew with the modular standard shroud which is the default sub type on this fairing base.

unknown.png?width=250&height=613unknown.png?width=221&height=806

note he black stripe is longer on side.

screenshot1577.png

screenshot1578.png

screenshot1581.png

screenshot1586.png

screenshot1588_-_Copy.png

screenshot1590.png?width=1401&height=788

screenshot1593.png?width=1430&height=804

 

Edited by Zorg

Share this post


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

(Titan-Atlas mutation)

<3

Oooooh.  And here I've been trying to figure out how I could make a sort-of R-7 using BDB.  For reasons.  And, bonus, this uses my two favorite US LVs.  Maybe it's time to go try doing horrible things to first-stage vessels...

Share this post


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

Oooooh.  And here I've been trying to figure out how I could make a sort-of R-7 using BDB.  For reasons.  And, bonus, this uses my two favorite US LVs.  Maybe it's time to go try doing horrible things to first-stage vessels...

Don't do it! You have so much to live for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Testing the new Titan 3A parts...

xpgOQ7t.png
S5cM6ya.png
AqPgLPK.png
LO3qBRJ.pngkX1bGIR.png
TsMUfcl.png
H3JtU5t.png

 

Some smaller LVs made to test some of the other new fairings...

a31R44f.png
UXIalNW.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

NSFW content

oh my god whatever this thrust-augmented timeline in which the bdb-iverse lives is the timeline I want to move to

Edited by nepphhh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, nepphhh said:

oh my god whatever this thrust-augmented timeline in which the bdb-iverse lives is the timeline I want to move to

eh, I think those were slapped on to test a new texture??   The Castors seem to have a new nosecone with a black tip.

But yes... All Titan IIIAs should have a minimum of 4 Castors (or GEM40 or GEM46s)

=========================Unrelated========================

anyone know what constitutes the GSO kit for "Common Centaur"?     Nevermind I found it:

Spoiler

2.5.5 Centaur Coast Performance Considerations The standard Centaur incorporates park orbit coasts as short as 8 minutes and as long as 2 hours. The minimum coast time is constrained by Centaur propellant settling and conditioning requirements. A shorter coast time could be implemented on a mission-unique basis, if required. No additional hardware would be required, but vehicle turn angles may be limited. Longer coast times can also be accommodated although hardware changes are required. A Centaur GSO Kit is required to support Centaur long-coast durations. For the Atlas V 400 series this includes the addition of two 150 amp-hour main vehicle batteries. For some long-coast missions that also incorporate long first Centaur burns, white paint may be required for the Centaur tank sidewalls. This assumption was not included in the long-coast performance data. For the Atlas V 500 series vehicles, the GSO Kit consists of the same additional battery power and Centaur LH2 tank sidewall radiation shield. Coasts of up to 6 hours in duration and/or Centaur three-burn missions are achievable with these GSO Kit items.

 

Edited by Pappystein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Extra hydrazine and helium spheres, mostly. 

Edited by Dragon01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... Any guide on how to properly test the new despin device? I've launched some Vanguards with it and cheated some test crafts to orbit, but still can't fully figure it out.

More importantly, is there any point in using it without additional realism-focused mods?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, biohazard15 said:

So... Any guide on how to properly test the new despin device? I've launched some Vanguards with it and cheated some test crafts to orbit, but still can't fully figure it out.

More importantly, is there any point in using it without additional realism-focused mods?

It's intended for mandatory rcs users, but if you turn off things like mechjeb and sas for the spin stabilized stages you don't need that. Place a pair in symmetry on the side of your craft, spin up with the spin motor decoupler, de-spin with the yoyo-but-not-really-depin-device. How this stuff will work is still being sorted out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Zarbon44 said:

Winged Gemini anyone?

C4prluL.png

Uh, no,  Solid pass.  Did that in FASA BITD and while it was fun for one or two flights..... 

I will wait for a Rogallo wing (not that it will likely ever happen.   But hey!)

 

BTW Interesting build.   I assume that you went with some stock parts to make the nose cone and get the Canard far enough forward?

 

 

Edited by Pappystein

Share this post


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

It's intended for mandatory rcs users, but if you turn off things like mechjeb and sas for the spin stabilized stages you don't need that. Place a pair in symmetry on the side of your craft, spin up with the spin motor decoupler, de-spin with the yoyo-but-not-really-depin-device. How this stuff will work is still being sorted out.

Got it, thanks! Will try later. However, I still hope there will be an optional MM patch that adds weak RW to Vanguard 1-3. I've tried spin decoupler before - kinda fun, but... strange. And also absolutely useless for anything except Vanguard 1-3 if you don't use mandatory RCS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all. What is a good career mod and tech tree to use with this ?

 

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.