Jump to content

Zorg

Members
  • Posts

    2,215
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Zorg

  1. On 7/12/2024 at 12:57 PM, hugoraider said:

    I'd love to see the LSAM too, but AFAIK it's not planned.

      

    On 7/12/2024 at 3:21 AM, slyfox023 said:

    I got a questions for the Devs, since you guys are about Alternate history, would it ever be a possibility that you guys would make "For All Mankind" parts at all?  

    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. 7 minutes ago, ra4nd0m said:

    Okey! Perhaps you can share your toolset for those illustrations? I have some free time and maybe can do some "pull requests" :)

    Also, @Zorg is there any chance of changing side node attachment of atlas V upper stage tank to have an option of selecting side?

    Right now atlas heavy is asymmetrical. Perhaps instead of simple "side node" option having "side node left" and "side node right" is a better option?

    Delta 4 also suffers from this.

    Perhaps @Rodger can take a look at this since they're config wizard 

    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. 13 hours ago, DaveyJ576 said:

    Nice work as always. I have never seen a good representation of what the OV’s looked like. The whole program was an interesting early way of orbiting what were essentially microsats. Looking forward to flying them. 

     

    6 hours ago, Taco Salad said:

    Wow, I am surprised I've NEVER seen these satellites till now. They look like toys instead of real spacecraft. The models are looking great so far.

    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

     

    Atlas  Details: Manufacturing OV-1 15 Gallon Tank; Plant 19  Date: 09/15/1965

    Atlas Negative Collection Image Atlas  Details: Drawing of Advanced Autopilot Servo.  Date: 03/30/1966 Atlas Negative Collection Image

    Atlas  Details: OV-1 (10) Airbrushed; Showing Just Pod  Date: 01/23/1968 Convair/General Dynamics Plant and Personnel Atlas  Details: Satat OV-1 Prepared; in Coffin; Wire Inspection  Date: 02/18/1965

     

  4. 11 hours ago, Birdman31 said:

    Just a question, are you guys planning to add any of the re-entry vehicles Atlas missiles used? like the one for the Titan?
    uvVMs3d.png

    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).

  5. 20 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

    Interesting. So they would cool the engine using the fuel or oxidizer, then dump them back into the thrust chamber, like the shuttle I'm assuming? Or is the dumping more like the F-1 and it happens at or near the end of the bell?

    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.

  6. 58 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

    No major issues that I have seen on my end.   However, a Small favor.  Could the older GEM-60 get a node to work with the new atlas V GEM-63/AJ60 decoupler?

    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.

    Spoiler

    CNhVbrw.png

    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 :P 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.

    vH2tV3E.png

    6y8mUAx.png

    ZmqIrc5.png

    5gYQtnK.png

    hU5ikFY.png

    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.

    PGV2EQP.png

  7. On 6/20/2024 at 11:34 PM, zakkpaz said:

    @Zorg are the revamped Atlas parts going to need any rebalancing or is it ok if I remake my craft files now?

    I really don’t want to have to do it twice.

    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."

    342057737-d4169c91-b800-41b5-911b-fd2352

    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.

  8. 7 hours ago, Pappystein said:

    Wait!  Do you have documentation for the RS-83/RS-84?   Please share with the class, the only F-1 scale engines I have documentation on are the Pintle TR-106/TR-107, which I would love to see made BDB quality (because they would be a drop in F-1 replacement and smaller)

     

    4 hours ago, GoldForest said:

    Nope. I was assuming you had documents for the RS-83/84. I'm surprised you don't, since the 83 was due to start prototyping phase before cancelation, which means there should at least be technical resaerch documents right? 

    I don't have any documents, but Google does pull this up: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20020085363

    Which is barely anything really. Doesn't even have a schematic which is really all we would need for the BDB team. 

    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.

    lhaBoRY.png

  9. 5 minutes ago, septemberWaves said:

    Does the SLV-3B fairing look right with the new Atlas? I imagine it probably does given how it is a newer part, but I've not played with the new Atlas parts yet so I've not taken a look at it for the sake of comparison.

    The fairing and base were made to the correct dimensions and the Agena adapter by Cobalt (which forms the base for the base if you will) should also be correct. Everything below can be built accurately too now so Im not concerned about the overall dimensions.

  10. 2 hours ago, Taco Salad said:

    Had a thought, what about an engine mount like this but for the Atlas III variant of the RD-180? Cool hollow mount like this that lets us connect stuff to the fuel line cleanly.

    Thats planned but not done yet.

     

    12 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

    Am I crazy... or is the upper tank for the Atlas A-thru III missing? 

    What? Which upper tank? The cylindrical extension tank? Atlas A and the other ICBMS and direct derivatives dont use a cylindrical extension, just the conical adapter. The rest use variants of the Bossart-BT3-1200 Balloon Fuel Tank

  11. Nose cone switch for GEM63 and GEM63XL so you can get both versions on each. The decoupler also now has a length switch to better match the XL. This is probably better suited to generic use on other rockets as the decoupler will not match the points on the Atlas V. If you really wanted to use the XL on Atlas V, its better to use the short version of the decoupler even if the top sits a little below the nose cone and the corresponding mounting hardware on the SRB. Visually at least the GEM 63 with the conical nose should be a very good match for the CELV's Castor.

    Also, the AJ60 and regular GEM63 now have their nozzles canted outwards 3 degrees. Due to an oversight only the XL nozzle had this previously. This has been corrected in a commit yesterday.

    1UiYqm7.png

  12. 4 hours ago, Entr8899 said:

    Is there any possibility of adding ultra-low-profile and various other switches to the RS68 so it can be used in some of the SDLV things in ORANGES, and maybe some other meme LVs? At the moment the feet of the mounting truss thing tend to stick out of like 80% of boattails you try to fit it into.

    jGaKcHO.png

    Unfortunately due to the way the RS68 is constructed, the thrust structure is integral to the whole thing. You have various support struts and even the gimbal mechanism hanging off of it. Taking into account the baked AO from all the pieces that connect to or pass near each other, making an even more compact version than the "compact" version shown here would mean redoing the power-head entirely. Almost 70% of the effort of making the whole engine.

  13. Updated CELV parts are up on github. The tanks have been remade and the extension tanks have been consolidated into b9ps switches in a cylindrical and conical part. The skirt has gotten a texture refresh while the aft sustainer mount tank only got a couple of minor tweaks. Its suggested to use Atlas II roll thrusters and the AJ60 motor for this build (the actual proposal called for a larger Castor of about that size).

    With this commit I believe the Atlas revamp has now reached parity with all the old stuff with the exception of the LR101 in line variant, which is modeled but not yet textured. Everything else remaining on the list would be all new.

    FyLwhmw.png

    RK0kNlG.png

    j95l5WW.png

    uEfp90E.png

    K1b0bfO.png

    dYhNROb.png

    TSlaKCM.png

  14. 10 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

    Remember, non Common bulkhead tanks are going to be in the region of 65-70% utilized (meaning only 65-70% the volume is Fuel, the rest is OPEN SPACE or utilized for things like Avionics)    EG Titan is I think 63%?  

    Conversely Agena is about 95% utilized as it is both a Monocoque structure AND a common bulkhead.  Only the back half of the forward rack, which is included in the BDB tank, isn't utilized.    

    Ballpark figures here, not exact cubic unit of measure by cubic unit of measure (or liters/gallons if you prefer)

    This is about calculating a rough physical volume for inventory items using a bounding box, not tank volumes.

×
×
  • Create New...