[1.12.5] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.13.0 "Забытый" 13/Aug/2023)

[GoldForest]

Here it is. The Skylab C-8 launch. It was... a huge success! I used Apollo to get Skylab into a roughly ~200km by ~1,000,000km (I didn't want to run out of fuel with Apollo) and not have a way to get the crew home.) Later missions could lower it further. 

This is a huge album, so please see the link for the complete album! 

Full album: Imgur: The magic of the Internet

[Pappystein]

18 hours ago, ArgentBlue said:

You can send the wet workshop to the mun on a regular Saturn V in jnsq, or even land it.

Yes, I have done that too with JNSQ.  I did a MLV launch though with 4 UA1208 SRMs and Drylab.   I got it into a highly eccentric Munar orbit.   The S-IVC was max MS-IVC strech and the MS-II-396 was also a stretched stage.

I chose a highly eliptical orbit on purpose for maximum communication time since I had no com-sats orbiting the Mun

 

5 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Here it is. The Skylab C-8 launch. It was... a huge success! I used Apollo to get Skylab into a roughly ~200km by ~1,000,000km (I didn't want to run out of fuel with Apollo) and not have a way to get the crew home.) Later missions could lower it further. 

This is a huge album, so please see the link for the complete album! 

 

Err, why not use the S-IVC concept with back to front S-IV hulls, a propulsion hull and then the Skylab with the S-IVC docking collar in between.   Obviously I am talking IRL S-IVC not the ETS S-IVC.    You have the delta V for a S-IVC on the launch yes?

The increase in the fineness ratio would also improve transonic+ performance in Atmosphere (not that KSP models that)

 

**EDITED**

And S-IVC was in development for the C-1/C-2 Tinker-toy ship to the Moon... so even if you have a point of Divergence to choose C-8 over any other option, the base engineering was done on S-IVC and docking... maybe not fuel transfer, but alteast docking and daisy-chaining.   So a launch with a S-IVC attached to a Drylab Skylab is 100% in both Timelines as a possibility/probability.

 

Edited May 11 by Pappystein

[DaveyJ576]

2 hours ago, Pappystein said:

Yes, I have done that too with JNSQ.  I did a MLV launch though with 4 UA1208 SRMs and Drylab.   I got it into a highly eccentric Munar orbit.   The S-IVC was max MS-IVC strech and the MS-II-396 was also a stretched stage.

I chose a highly eliptical orbit on purpose for maximum communication time since I had no com-sats orbiting the Mun

 

Err, why not use the S-IVC concept with back to front S-IV hulls, a propulsion hull and then the Skylab with the S-IVC docking collar in between.   Obviously I am talking IRL S-IVC not the ETS S-IVC.    You have the delta V for a S-IVC on the launch yes?

The increase in the fineness ratio would also improve transonic+ performance in Atmosphere (not that KSP models that)

 

**EDITED**

And S-IVC was in development for the C-1/C-2 Tinker-toy ship to the Moon... so even if you have a point of Divergence to choose C-8 over any other option, the base engineering was done on S-IVC and docking... maybe not fuel transfer, but alteast docking and daisy-chaining.   So a launch with a S-IVC attached to a Drylab Skylab is 100% in both Timelines as a possibility/probability.

 

Do you have a visual representation of the S-IVC that you are referring to? What were the engines, J-2s?

[GoldForest]

8 minutes ago, DaveyJ576 said:

Do you have a visual representation of the S-IVC that you are referring to? What were the engines, J-2s?

I believe it is this one that Paddystein is talking about.

[GoldForest]

6 hours ago, Pappystein said:

Yes, I have done that too with JNSQ.  I did a MLV launch though with 4 UA1208 SRMs and Drylab.   I got it into a highly eccentric Munar orbit.   The S-IVC was max MS-IVC strech and the MS-II-396 was also a stretched stage.

I chose a highly eliptical orbit on purpose for maximum communication time since I had no com-sats orbiting the Mun

 

Err, why not use the S-IVC concept with back to front S-IV hulls, a propulsion hull and then the Skylab with the S-IVC docking collar in between.   Obviously I am talking IRL S-IVC not the ETS S-IVC.    You have the delta V for a S-IVC on the launch yes?

The increase in the fineness ratio would also improve transonic+ performance in Atmosphere (not that KSP models that)

 

**EDITED**

And S-IVC was in development for the C-1/C-2 Tinker-toy ship to the Moon... so even if you have a point of Divergence to choose C-8 over any other option, the base engineering was done on S-IVC and docking... maybe not fuel transfer, but alteast docking and daisy-chaining.   So a launch with a S-IVC attached to a Drylab Skylab is 100% in both Timelines as a possibility/probability.

 

Something like this? Or were you thinking more along the lines of a separate launch for the S-IVC?

Honestly, not a fan of this... 

Edited May 11 by GoldForest

[Spike88]

On 2/27/2024 at 6:04 PM, Spike88 said:

It is KSP-AVC maintained by LinuxGamerGuru, not sure if that has problems too. Either way I removed it and I'm still getting the issue. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Turns out it was TacLS

 

[yourboi]

Would it be possible to add a stockalike Mars Pathfinder/Mars Exploration Rover System with its Cruise stage,Aeroshell/parachute/heatshell? Because Back it the old days of ksp there was a mod by now has been long dead.

Edited May 12 by yourboi

[DA299]

On 5/9/2024 at 12:18 AM, Zorg said:

As far as we know it mostly works fine but we don't test with FAR when developing.

I forgot to reply, but if you're building planes like the X-15 you'd likely need a rudimentary config for FAR. That's why I was asking. 

Really love the mod btw

[Rodger]

4 hours ago, DA299 said:

I forgot to reply, but if you're building planes like the X-15 you'd likely need a rudimentary config for FAR. That's why I was asking. 

I’ve tested the x15 with FAR and it seemed to fly ok (I couldn’t tell much difference to stock in terms of handling at least), and I’m not even sure what would need manually setting for a FAR patch, as it automatically generates everything from the mesh as far as I know. If someone knows otherwise though, and finds something critical that needs patching, please @ me and I can look into it more.

[Rodger]

11 hours ago, Spike88 said:

Turns out it was TacLS

 

Sorry I didn't see this earlier, but there was a fix about 9 months ago for this issue on github, I think it's after 1.13 was released though. If you want to use TACLS still, you can just download this patch:

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/CobaltWolf/Bluedog-Design-Bureau/master/Gamedata/Bluedog_DB/Compatibility/TAC-LS/Command.cfg

and place it in the Gamedata/Bluedog_DB/Compatibility/TAC-LS/ folder.

AVC should be fine to use too, it was only MiniAVC that had issues.

 

[DA299]

7 hours ago, Rodger said:

I’ve tested the x15 with FAR and it seemed to fly ok (I couldn’t tell much difference to stock in terms of handling at least), and I’m not even sure what would need manually setting for a FAR patch, as it automatically generates everything from the mesh as far as I know. If someone knows otherwise though, and finds something critical that needs patching, please @ me and I can look into it more.

OK that's great to know but the wings probably need custom FAR configs as those are the one thing FAR can't generate from meshes. I'll check it out and then report back.

[Pappystein]

On 5/11/2024 at 12:34 PM, GoldForest said:

I believe it is this one that Paddystein is talking about.

Yep, that is it. I have that report and two others. 

The J-2 Engine was chosen for greater clearances over the more viable twin bell LH2 LR87 FOR this concept.  So base J-2 if you are doing early tech or, as this Douglas document calls out, the J-2S for later time (this diagram is from some of the MLV studies post 1967, which means J-2S dominates now)   ***TBC this was hardly the only factor and I covered it in detail in my LR87 history document***

BDB HAS all the parts you need for this to work.... except the AZ50 Space Ring Tug.

 

 

Many of the reports I cite about S-IVC were behind the 'classified' wall when I believe e of pi and team began developing their ETS alternate timeline (hence the reuse of the S-IVC designation.   I know I kicked one of the documents loose as part of a FOIA request myself.  (Preliminary Design report on the C-2 Saturn)

 

Edited May 12 by Pappystein

[Pappystein]

On 5/11/2024 at 1:21 PM, GoldForest said:

Something like this? Or were you thinking more along the lines of a separate launch for the S-IVC?

Honestly, not a fan of this... 

Probably a shorter propellant tank for the S-IVC stage... but yes

 

[Spike88]

10 hours ago, Rodger said:

Sorry I didn't see this earlier, but there was a fix about 9 months ago for this issue on github, I think it's after 1.13 was released though. If you want to use TACLS still, you can just download this patch:

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/CobaltWolf/Bluedog-Design-Bureau/master/Gamedata/Bluedog_DB/Compatibility/TAC-LS/Command.cfg

and place it in the Gamedata/Bluedog_DB/Compatibility/TAC-LS/ folder.

AVC should be fine to use too, it was only MiniAVC that had issues.

 

After all this time looking for the cause of the problem and trying to find a solution, there was a simple one all along. 

[Pudgemountain]

Mission: Orbit Scourge.

Payload: A modified Wild Wind probe named Ghost 2.

Launch Vehicle: Titan IV Centaur.

Thanks to Ghost 2 I got enough science to fully unlock Apollo and the Saturn V.

Preview of a unmanned test for a upcoming mission.

Spoiler

 

[GoldForest]

I made the ugly "Nova" rocket... In the words of the great Alucard, abridged version... "I'm not apologizing." 

Head-canon: This is C-8 Block 1. Too much thrust tbh. 2.x TWR at launch... yeah, it would probably go supersonic on the pad if the first stage wasn't carrying the weight of the other stages. 

Full album: Imgur: The magic of the Internet

Edited May 13 by GoldForest

[GoldForest]

Teaser image

[DA299]

Re: X-15 testing with FAR.

So as promised I decided to test the X-15 model with KSP 1.12 and FAR "Marangoni". After several tests, I have come to the conclusion that BDB X-15 has severe yaw and roll instability. I'm not sure what exactly is causing this, but I'm pretty sure it has something to do with the wing configs.

This is what happens when you try to fly the plane lol:

https://imgur.com/a/m1sgqbM

Checking out the numbers in the FAR analysis window, you can see that the BDB version has red values for both yaw stability and roll stability. An easy fix for this is to make replica wing surfaces like I did with b9 procedural wings and then comparing the configs. You can see that the 'procedural wings X-15' exhibits no such roll/yaw instability and actually flies really well (Almost too well, I don't think even the IRL X-15s were that easy to fly.) 

https://imgur.com/a/VgGvOLZ

I also went to space with this version

https://imgur.com/a/8RpBY8N

So all in all, def patch this if you want FAR compatibility. Its not really a big hassle to make your own wings (cuz you can still enjoy the excellent lifted-body model; which you can't make procedurally). So you can also just put a warning that FAR players should make their own wings. (I certainly won't complain )

[Hybr1d]

Anyone else have a problem with the AJ-260's flying off whenever you try and launch it on smth? Its super annoying and if anyones got a fix for it that'll be great please

edit: Autostrut didnt work but a buttload of struts seem to do the trick

Edited May 13 by Hybr1d

[septemberWaves]

54 minutes ago, Hybr1d said:

Anyone else have a problem with the AJ-260's flying off whenever you try and launch it on smth? Its super annoying and if anyones got a fix for it that'll be great please

edit: Autostrut didnt work but a buttload of struts seem to do the trick

Are you using the dedicated Saturn-scale decouplers to attach them? If not, try those. If so, then I have no idea what might help you.

[GoldForest]

Gemini XX lands on the Mun!

Full album: Imgur: The magic of the Internet

Due to accidentally getting into a high orbit... Gemini Lander didn't have enough fuel to get to the desired orbit... so Jeb jumps out and goes for a fly with his pack.

[GoldForest]

Not a teaser per say, just messing around with KVV

 

Edited May 14 by GoldForest

[Taco Salad]

42 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Not a teaser per say, just messing around with KVV

 

Oh god its HORRIBLE. 
I need it. What's the engine mount from?

[septemberWaves]

24 minutes ago, Taco Salad said:

Oh god its HORRIBLE. 
I need it. What's the engine mount from?

The engine mount looks like it's probably just from Shuttle Orbiter Construction Kit. The part that's very unique is the adapter forward of the engine mount, the one that transforms from space shuttle cross-section to Saturn cross-section; that's the part that I don't know where it's from.

[Rodger]

20 hours ago, DA299 said:

Re: X-15 testing with FAR.

So as promised I decided to test the X-15 model with KSP 1.12 and FAR "Marangoni". After several tests, I have come to the conclusion that BDB X-15 has severe yaw and roll instability. I'm not sure what exactly is causing this, but I'm pretty sure it has something to do with the wing configs.

This is what happens when you try to fly the plane lol:

https://imgur.com/a/m1sgqbM

Checking out the numbers in the FAR analysis window, you can see that the BDB version has red values for both yaw stability and roll stability. An easy fix for this is to make replica wing surfaces like I did with b9 procedural wings and then comparing the configs. You can see that the 'procedural wings X-15' exhibits no such roll/yaw instability and actually flies really well (Almost too well, I don't think even the IRL X-15s were that easy to fly.) 

https://imgur.com/a/VgGvOLZ

I also went to space with this version

https://imgur.com/a/8RpBY8N

So all in all, def patch this if you want FAR compatibility. Its not really a big hassle to make your own wings (cuz you can still enjoy the excellent lifted-body model; which you can't make procedurally). So you can also just put a warning that FAR players should make their own wings. (I certainly won't complain )

Thanks for testing. I've made a patch, but I'm not sure how good it is - if you want to try it out and let me know how it feels. It still seems like it's wanting to roll around a lot. Do you tweak the control surfaces much to get it working well? The numbers are green at least:

Spoiler

the test patch: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fTCFMe-wkAEqmY4t4tfjMXPIpnCS98jn/view?usp=sharing