Jump to content

Zorg

Members
  • Posts

    2,215
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

11,844 Excellent

Contact Methods

  • Twitter
    https://twitter.com/zorg2044

Recent Profile Visitors

16,203 profile views
  1. Not really. No one on the team is a particularly big FAM fan. The designs in that show are fine for what they are in the show but compared to IRL designs, IRL concepts and well thought out alternate history concepts such as from ETS, they are really not all that plausible and wouldn't fit in with what we have in that sense. Why make half baked hollywood designs when we have a plethora of real concepts such as the various LM derivatives cobalt added? I think we all agree the initial Jamestown module and interior looks cool though but there are no current plans to actually make it. If something from FAM ever makes it to BDB thats probably the only thing that has any chance at all.
  2. Do you mean the fact that 1 booster is rotated the other way? thats the way it is in the IRL design. The nodes on the Delta IV should allow for all 3 cores to be oriented identically like the real thing.
  3. There's a ton of pics on the San Diego Air and Space Museum's Atlas negatives flickr archive. https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=OV1+atlas https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=date-taken-desc&safe_search=1&tags=ov1&user_id=49487266%40N07&view_all=1
  4. Starting on the OV1s OV1-1 OV1-10 Not sure if I'll do any more. Perhaps 17,18 or 19 sometime. But will do the pods next. Side mount Atlas Retained Structure, the nose mounted "dual ARS" and the regular fairing that can carry two or three.
  5. I've added the Atlas A nose cone which was not an RV just an aero nose cone probably with some instrumentation like pitot tubes. Functionally it has the optional lead ballast tank. Cobalt has outlined why we are generally hesitant to add warhead parts. I dont judge people who are into all that and I do play some milsims myself but when it comes to KSP I like the "purer" more innocent spirit KSP and Kerbals represent for me. That said the mk II RV has a nice shape and was mostly a research vehicle. That part is a maybe and I might do it like the Titan II cone or as an atmospheric probe if I do go ahead. I have no interest in the mk3 and mk4 RVs though (pictured is a mk3 I think).
  6. I think its worth clarifying for the un-initiated this Atlas F is a completely different beast to the Atlas F we actually ended up actually getting.
  7. There's not much about it but I believe its regenerative. I would think its the hydrazine I think not the flourine oxidizer being circulated. BTW the F1 was also regeneratively cooled where fuel ran through the tube channels and then went into the chamber (this would be for everything above the manifold thats halfway down the nozzle). It was the burnt turbopump exhaust that was used for film cooling, not unburnt propellants.
  8. They're really cool. The signature visual feature of the engine for sure. They are heat exchangers.
  9. I'll look at that as an interim solution. GEM 60 probably needs to be remade to match the newer motors though. In the meantime the update for today is BDB's first flourine engine. The Rocketdyne G-1 Flourine Engine-Hydrazine for the NOMAD upper stage. NOMAD itself may happen some time in the future perhaps. This incredible model was made by @Al2Me6 for RO-engines originally, for once we are importing a model from them rather than the other way around I made a few small adjustments to the TU based PBR textures to fit the other BDB engines but this is 95% Al's work as is with very minor tweaks to fit. Its a pressure fed engine with low thrust. But due to the Flourine, it still gets 357s and 368s with the nozzle extension. In game it will use LFO by default but maybe someone will do something for BDB extras. Little bonus update, some tweaks to the RD180 to make it a little less monotone. Still based on IRL pics, but some engines had less paint and more surface variation. Think it looks better.
  10. So I've done a bit of testing and honestly I'm largely happy with the balance. Just quoting from the issue page: https://github.com/CobaltWolf/Bluedog-Design-Bureau/issues/1456 "Due to various factors the performance of KSP rockets can vary a lot but I consider between 2/3 to 100% of IRL performance in 2.5x scale to be acceptable. The IRL figures here are from example missions from Ed Kyle so are indicative rather than max payload. From Atlas 2 onwards the figures are max payload from Lockheed/ULA users guides. Atlas II struggles to LEO but this is due to the difference in scaling between the world vs the atmo I believe. It suffers significant gravity losses and the core never gets close to 1:1 TWR. However most other builds fall in an acceptable range so I'm planning to leave the balance as is." Unless someone discovers a major issue I dont think I will make any major changes. Perhaps some small tweaks to the mass of structural parts etc if we spot anything. But fuel loads arent going to change.
  11. J1-U mount is now available as a general use 1.875m mount. This is in addition to the Atlas III rd180 derived one. Features 1 to 4 nodes and 3 shroud lengths ( style based on a model of the J1U). Pipe can be toggled off of course.
  12. RS83 is something I've thought about before. I might be interested tbh after Atlas. Theres no orthographic but dimensions and a reasonably clear layout of the powerhead are available. RS84 was made by Nertea for the NFLV revamp btw.
  13. We havent done a balance pass. My gut feeling is that fuel loads probably wont change but no promises.
×
×
  • Create New...