Jump to content

APOLLO (SATURN-V with F1 & J2, APOLLO CSM, LEM, LLRV). by OLDD (v.1.4. 09.05.14)


Recommended Posts

here it are

F1 and J2 engines. Scaled 0.55

but some folks said me that here we have an indigame, not a simulator, and engines are overdetailed a lot.

definately.. models are 5-10 times heavy than SQUADS, and 3 times heavy than FASA J2.

and i'm do not sure it will be usefull

XpoPHkU.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its cool we all have our moments, that's what makes us human we are not perfect. The models are awesome and if we ever get a 64bit client where we can use more than this crap 32bit memory limit it wont be an issue 64bit client should be a priority but that's an argument for another time and thread.

Edited by Virtualgenius
Link to post
Share on other sites
here it are

F1 and J2 engines. Scaled 0.55

but some folks said me that here we have an indigame, not a simulator, and engines are overdetailed a lot. definately.. models are 5-10 times heavy than SQUADS, and 3 times heavy than FASA J2.

and i'm do not sure it will be usefull

There is a fine line between kerbalism and realism. Even still, awesome work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Its cool we all have our moments, that's what makes us human we are not perfect. The models are awesome and if we ever get a 64bit client where we can use more than this crap 32bit memory limit it wont be an issue 64bit client should be a priority but that's an argument for another time and thread.

overal weight of both engines with MBM textures is about 10MB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are really pretty. The more I see these realistic type models, the more I realise I like them a lot more than the old stock ones. I think some parts in KSP needs an art pass, as the VAB and other buildings do look nice enough.

Do not forget that KSP started out rather cartoonish, but that the community has displayed a strong preference for fairly accurate models - be it physics wise or asset wise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
The descent stage tank's center of mass isn't aligned with the thrust vector and the LEM starts to spin. Did I do something wrong or it's something to be fixed?

this happens in atmosphere, right? because vessel is highly unsimmetrical

but it should work ok in open space.

tell me more about situation and i'll check asap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This happens in space for some reason. I can see in the VAB that the CoM is not lined up with the thrust vector. I'll take some pictures or even make a video later.

So here they are-

A view from the top:

CX8as7W.png

RCS build also confirms the rotation:

0Hv67aJ.png

Edited by Reddragon
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so I observed the problem and the issue is that with the mobility enhancer, staircase leg ALSEP etc. set on the LEM the whole thing get's unbalanced. I had to place another staircase leg and an ALSEP box with an ALSEP module on the backside of the descent stage, so it wasn't so front heavy. I could make it work but it could be a serious problem late if you add the LRV.

Edited by Reddragon
Link to post
Share on other sites
This happens in space for some reason. I can see in the VAB that the CoM is not lined up with the thrust vector. I'll take some pictures or even make a video later.

So here they are-

A view from the top:

https://i.imgur.com/CX8as7W.png

RCS build also confirms the rotation:

https://i.imgur.com/0Hv67aJ.png

Its the landing gear, the ladder gears center of mass is different than that of the regular one. It throws off the balance of the craft. Have them both be laddered landing legs on each side and it will even it out..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Denny, might I suggest having a half-length version of the Apollo Service Module fuel tank as well as the full-length one that you showed off more than a month ago? On the Apollo missions that went to the Moon, they had a full tank because they had to all those fuel-costly maneuvers around the Moon. But the Apollo CSM's launched on Earth orbital missions such Apollo 7 or the Skylab missions didn't require that much fuel, so those CSM's carried much less fuel. It's not inconceivable that if the Apollo program had continued on, NASA would've constructed a special version of the Apollo CSM for Earth orbital missions that would've done away with the large half-fueled fuel tank and instead had a smaller fuel tank that would be fully fueled. It also wouldn't have needed such a big engine, so they could've gone with a smaller one like the Apollo Lunar Descent Engine (which you've already created). Something like this:

apollo_block_iii_vanilla_small.png?w=750&tok=f96ef2

So if it'd wouldn't be too much extra work, it'd be great if there'd be a fuel tank that was only half as tall as the normal CSM fuel tank. It would certainly increase the variety of designs that we could make.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Denny, might I suggest having a half-length version of the Apollo Service Module fuel tank as well as the full-length one that you showed off more than a month ago? On the Apollo missions that went to the Moon, they had a full tank because they had to all those fuel-costly maneuvers around the Moon. But the Apollo CSM's launched on Earth orbital missions such Apollo 7 or the Skylab missions didn't require that much fuel, so those CSM's carried much less fuel. It's not inconceivable that if the Apollo program had continued on, NASA would've constructed a special version of the Apollo CSM for Earth orbital missions that would've done away with the large half-fueled fuel tank and instead had a smaller fuel tank that would be fully fueled. It also wouldn't have needed such a big engine, so they could've gone with a smaller one like the Apollo Lunar Descent Engine (which you've already created). Something like this:

http://wiki.alternatehistory.com/lib/exe/fetch.php/timelines/apollo_block_iii_vanilla_small.png?w=750&tok=f96ef2

So if it'd wouldn't be too much extra work, it'd be great if there'd be a fuel tank that was only half as tall as the normal CSM fuel tank. It would certainly increase the variety of designs that we could make.

I thought that they used the extra space in the SM for the storage of experiments, extra life support needed for the longer 60-day missions on Skylab, and fuel and RCS needed for docking and rendezvous. But I do agree that the engine was a bit OP for crew transfer to LEO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also a thermal soak heat shield, instead if the aluminum honeycomb ablative would probably save some weight along with batteries instead of a fuel cell (just for SL missions), lighter navigational computers, and an optimized high-gain antenna array.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought that they used the extra space in the SM for the storage of experiments, extra life support needed for the longer 60-day missions on Skylab, and fuel and RCS needed for docking and rendezvous. But I do agree that the engine was a bit OP for crew transfer to LEO.

Since they had all the Block IIs built, they made sure to fill up everything with extra stuff to get the most out of their remaining CSMs. But if you have a permanent space station presence, it makes sense to reduce everything to the bare minimum needed for the job.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, so I observed the problem and the issue is that with the mobility enhancer, staircase leg ALSEP etc. set on the LEM the whole thing get's unbalanced. I had to place another staircase leg and an ALSEP box with an ALSEP module on the backside of the descent stage, so it wasn't so front heavy. I could make it work but it could be a serious problem late if you add the LRV.

yup, you right.

i have checked all meshs in 3D max, all were ok with pivots and centers...

and unbalance occurs because of modularity of LEM.

hmm... my Saturn-V and Apollo spacecraft are high modularity too.... Complete Saturn-V-Apollo-LEM complex consists from about 100 parts. And requires KerbalJointReinforement for work, otherwise becomes dancing.

seems like not a good idea to have so high modularity?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its where your parts are in unity when you export that matter and not in max.

If you change the cfg so the attach node is at 0,0,0 that is your center of mass. If your legs have the same attach node values then they will have the same center of mass.

If you want two different parts to be perfectly balanced they have to have the same, weight, drag and center of mass.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some New Items are up.

Also CSM_LEM resources has been completely rebalanced and becomes a bit easy to use.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

*****************

Javascript is disabled. View full album

*********************************

S-II - S-IVB interstage

J2 engine

S-IVB

S-IVB instrument unit

SLA with opening plates

CSM-LEM attachment device

CM Capsule with ints visible from outside

CM Docking device (new one)

CM RCS

CM heatshield

CM-SM decoupler

SM Body with ints visible from outside

SM RCS

SM Main Engine

SM Antenna

SM Docking Light

Will be relased in days

Edited by DennyTX
Link to post
Share on other sites
Some New Items are up.

Also CSM_LEM resources has been completely rebalanced and becomes a bit easy to use.

http://imgur.com/a/Vg8yf

*****************

http://imgur.com/a/Jtj7H

*********************************

S-II - S-IVB interstage

J2 engine

S-IVB

S-IVB instrument unit

SLA with opening plates

CSM-LEM attachment device

CM Capsule with ints visible from outside

CM Docking device (new one)

CM RCS

CM heatshield

CM-SM decoupler

SM Body with ints visible from outside

SM RCS

SM Main Engine

SM Antenna

SM Docking Light

Will be relased in days

Wow, amazing stuff! Can't wait to mess around with that. :D

And I'd love you to make the LM model who flown in Apollo 8. Look at this pic: http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/0/10074959.jpg

And I don't think it will make you lose a lot of time. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Just wow. This is incredible. How are they scaled? If they're scaled precisely to 64%, you'll be my hero. :) Also, are you planning to make an APS and ullage motors for that S-IVB?

Here's some info on the former:

http://www.spaceaholic.com/csimages/cssaturn_aps_diagram.gif

And the latter:

http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=17909

S-II retro and ullage motors. Also good stuff:

http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=18233

The S-IVB/S-II interstage had built in retrorockets. I'd propose that you fuse them with the decoupler, with an "automatic fairing" for the nozzle coverings, linked to the bottom node.

Also, on the CM RCS, the red pieces are probably protective covers removed before flight. I've never seen them on the flight-configured CSM.

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites

*Picks jaw up from keyboard and tries to continue working...*

*EDIT*

No couldn't do it. Had to come back for second look!

*RE EDIT*

I'm going to do the rest of the Apollo programme suits ASAP!

Need. Glorious. Parts...

Edited by Green Skull
Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

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...