Zorg

I'll answer a little indirectly with a full account of what I know. The key thing about HG3 is that its not an engine The HG3 study was a "parametric study" contracted out by Marshall to evaluate the technologies required for a future theoretical engine in the 300-400k lbf thrust range. The study ends up recommending staged combustion (referred to as preburner cycle here, its also known as topping cycle in some places like RS30 documents). Based on the analysis a 315k lbf "HG-3" engine that would fit the J-2 envelope was included in several MLV studies. The engine is entirely notional however and was illustrated vaguely by someone with a J2 nozzle and a blob above it. Furthermore, it is believed the results of this study influenced the decision to go with staged combustion for the shuttle main engines. Hence some people often assume the HG-3 to look like J2 with an SSME type powerhead or a proto SSME. Thing is around this time I believe that Rocketdyne were mostly interested in Aerospikes. The HG-3 study reports were published in 1964 and 1965 and so I guess it ran from around 63-65? The final thing about how a notional HG-3 might look like if it ever got to an actual design phase is that the contractor for the HG-3 study, the party who published the report were... Pratt and Whitney!! And so we come to the RL-20. The RL20 according to an extract from a P&W brochure 1963 as quoted here was designed in the preceding 4 years. https://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Space_Engines/Pratt_Engines.htm So it seems the RL20 predates the HG-3 study. But being a staged combustion engine that fits the J2 envelope (in particular the vac version as mentioned directly in at least one other MLV document), it fits most of the recommended parameters of Hg-3 study except for the thrust level. The contract for the XLR129 was issued in 1966 based on an air force need. It was unspecified at the time but it was of course for the classified ISINGLASS spyplane. So work on this started after the HG-3 reports. The XLR 129 in its initial form did not meet the thrust category of the HG-3 parameters either but it did later on when it was uprated for the SSME program. It also never had a need to fit the J2 envelope and fittings. So conclusion, HG3 is not an engine but a set of parameters. Though neither the RL20 nor the XLR129 were built to an HG-3 "requirement" they are the closest things you can drop into an MLV design calling for an HG3. The RL20 vac fits very nicely as it is specifically mentioned for Saturn but the upgraded XLR 129 meets the thrust. (I prefer the RL20 as a direct J2 upgrade) I still see in places like the Wikipedia article on the SSME that Rocketdyne had "experience developing the HG-3". However I cannot find any original source that shows Rocketdyne did "HG-3" work based on P&W's reports. Sources: https://archive.org/details/NASA_NTRS_Archive_19650020081/page/n27/mode/2up "MODIFIED LAUNCH VEHICLE (MLV) SATURN V t IMPROVEMENT STUDY COMPOS ITE SUMMARY REPORT" The actual reports from P&W referenced in this report are not available publicly, I sent a cheeky FOIA request, lets see

Yes VFB at least in the proposal I posted earlier requires twin LMDEs instead of a single SPS. For both redundancy and for increased room for the mission module. Twin mount will come eventually but 1 will do for now.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19790072165 Should be in here.

@Invaderchaos can probably confirm since they made it but my understanding is that though its a secondary payload, it was not an independent satellite. It remains attached to the Agena. The part description should probably update to reflect this and avoid confusion. In game its ultimately a glorified antenna (albeit with nice stripey box )

It’s a real thing. Very notional design though. Will post a link tomorrow, can’t access it right where I am. that said the part in game has had no balancing done. I really need to actually do something about it soon.

Known issue with the jettison module we have. Please ensure the lab itself is not the root part, would suggest making the IU the root instead (which is the "proper" way to build it anyway).

Support for BDB is done by the Realism Overhaul volunteers, not the BDB authors (The compatibility files are also in RealismOverhaul, not BDB). Best way to add support for missing stuff is to contribute them yourself to the Realism Overhaul repository

I believe its an issue specific to KSP 1.12 and how animations are handled. Not related to B9. Will see once Invader is able to try my suggested fix.

Haven't a clue. Got it from someone else, JadeOfMaar possibly but cant remember for sure. edit: well ok dont know what the number itself is exactly, could be mach? But we can guess its the velocity at which the aero shock effects and the entry plasma effects show up. The numbers in the comments are defaults possibly?

Er yeah, Im trying to figure out some colours that will work better. I am under the suspicion its not actually rendering the exact color specified in the RGB code though... will look into though. To add to whats already been said, if you care about the aesthetics of the ascent, and you dont want to throttle down to the point where the plumes also start to look weedy its best to choose a low TWR rocket to begin with. Atlas CELV is a good option, you can sit back and enjoy it struggle uphill, no overheating or pitch down there . You could also run a patch to delay when aero fx appear. This is for JNSQ. I guess you could just replace AFTER[JNSQ] with FINAL to it if you are on rescaled stock or something else. @PHYSICSGLOBALS:AFTER[JNSQ] { // AeroFX @aeroFXStartThermalFX = 5.5 // 2.5 @aeroFXFullThermalFX = 8.5 // 3.75 }

It’s a little late right now but will shoot over some getting started resources tomorrow.

I'll just say that I also started from scratch last year. The only arty thing I was any good at before was photography. KSP texturing is entirely about following a process, it doesnt require hand drawing skills etc. Similarly for 3d modelling, you dont need magic hands, its about learning what tools to use and how to use them to get a desired result. In both cases the artistry comes from design, rather than technique and you learn quickly by doing.

eeeh, i can't speak for Cobalt but I'm personally not interested. Not for any particular reason, I'm just not keen on working on that. perhaps it's time to learn some blender? Be the change you wish to see in the world and all that.

SAF fairings do not support surface attach directly. However you can surface attach CDs to the fairing base and translate them up onto the fairing itself. I believe it now works fine and does not reproject after jettison after cineboxAndrew specifically updated it to support SAF (unless I am imagining this but I think this is the case and it works). All SAF bases in BDB should support surface attach for that reason, if there are any that dont please let me know.

Oh ok, fair enough. I will leave you with this to soothe your eyes. (yes its planned)

Lol Im not sure what pattern there is. When Saturn/Skylab/Apollo is done, that leaves the Atlas engines as the oldest engines. Personally I think the atlas tanks still hold up well but there can be a better base tank and more flexible half staging mounts. Plus a few extra goodies. The issue has been up for a while but the priority is Skylab for me right now. https://github.com/CobaltWolf/Bluedog-Design-Bureau/issues/974

Interferes with anything and everything? Or really just Atlas? Its not H1 that needs to be revamped but Atlas (at least partially). Which is planned for after I'm done with Skylab.

The shielding is basically the entire black wrap around the skylab. This is toggled on and off via the shield button on the part action window. IRL this shield was torn off accidentally during ascent. A small portion of it remained underneath the surviving solar panel. The b9 switch is for that area. 1) Launch as planned - Shield on (auto jettison off), panel on 2) launch as it happened - shield on (auto jettison on or jettison manually), panel on 3) Non-historical all gold skylab - shield off, panel off.

I dont understand what the issue is? The solar panels extend and retract fine in the editor for me. And the fixed shielding panel looks correctly toggled off there?

Why would the H1 need a revamp? It might be 2 years or so old but the Saturn engine revamp back then set the art standard for all engines that followed since.

Is the shroud returning? Or is the shroud changing to the wide shroud used on the LWWS? Either way it sounds related to a known issue with shrouds which is caused by having the workshop as the root part. Its being looked at but JSO informs me root related problems are difficult to solve so may not be possible. In any case I would recommend making sure another part is root, typically it should be the instrument unit. I will add this warning to the part description sometime today.

wee update

Deliberate center F1 shut down was standard on Saturn V. Around the 4G mark iirc.

While github still doesnt seem have acknowledged the issue, I found out you can download the revamp branch just by forcing the correct URL. if you would rather not clone to desktop (which imo is a good idea) or fork the repo (bad idea cos you need to manually merge any new commits we make). you can just download from this link https://github.com/CobaltWolf/Bluedog-Design-Bureau/archive/refs/heads/apollo-saturn-revamp.zip

Love it! Did the entry probe survive long enough to gather anything useful? I havent really done much with it balance wise yet.