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

[GoldForest]

26 minutes ago, Entr8899 said:

@ZorgCould you please add a variant for the Atlas II booster skirt that includes the covered sustainer engine hole for the IIB variant (and maybe also removes the ability to decouple it so I don't accidentally hit space)?

There is a version that covers the hole, the Atlas A or Prototype variant. As for the decoupler, just disable it in the PAW. 

[harveylates]

help its too op in the stock system

 

[GoldForest]

31 minutes ago, harveylates said:

help its too op in the stock system

 

BDB is made for a 2.5 scale system. Download Rescale 2.5x or any of the 2.7x scale mods. 

If you want to stick with stock scale, nothing you can do really except remove some fuel and lower the thrust on the engines to make it more reasonable. 

Edited June 15 by GoldForest

[harveylates]

ill try it out in a newsave file

 

[harveylates]

perhaps make config to balence it for the stock scale system as a seperate download

[Zorg]

12 minutes ago, harveylates said:

perhaps make config to balence it for the stock scale system as a seperate download

BDB is balanced against stock. The thing is the stock balance is itself an overpowered balance in order to make the game easy to get into. Consider the size of a rocket made using entirely stock parts to send a 3 person capsule to the moon in the default size stock system. Then compare with a real rocket required to do the same mission. 
 

to put it another way balancing against stock and balancing for 2.5x means the same thing. If you play with BDB with the default system it will be overpowered. Just like stock parts. If you use 2.5x scale it will be quite realistic. Just like stock parts. 
 

if you don’t want to use a larger system just build smaller rockets. We’re not going to to rebalance 1300 parts in a way no one else does. 

13 hours ago, Entr8899 said:

@ZorgCould you please add a variant for the Atlas II booster skirt that includes the covered sustainer engine hole for the IIB variant (and maybe also removes the ability to decouple it so I don't accidentally hit space)?

This is planned (I need to copy the bottom from the atlas A skirt). As for the decoupling you should be able to disable staging in the part action window. If that’s not there I’ll add the toggle when I can check on it. 

Edited June 15 by Zorg

[harveylates]

 

2 minutes ago, Zorg said:

BDB is balanced against stock. The thing is the stock balance is itself an overpowered balance in order to make the game easy to get into. Consider the size of a rocket made using entirely stock parts to send a 3 person capsule to the moon in the default size stock system. Then compare with a real rocket required to do the same mission. 
 

to put it another way balancing against stock and balancing for 2.5x means the same thing. If you play with BDB with the default system it will be overpowered. Just like stock parts. If you use 2.5x scale it will be quite realistic. Just like stock parts. 

ok ill try that

[Rodger]

I’m also personally not super keen on making a nerf patch for 1300+ parts to suit 1/10th scale systems lol

You could maybe try installing Tweakscale Rescaled and shrink all your rockets in-game. Or like is recommended in the thread OP, try installing the JNSQ planet pack which is a 2.5x (or 2.66) scale pack by default, still based on the stock system. KSRSS is another 2.5x option with real life planets. Or just a rescale patch for kopernicus+sigma dimensions.

[septemberWaves]

The stock scale isn't fun if you care about realistic rockets. The stock scale lends itself well to bobblehead rockets and hilariously inefficient chaos devices, because it's designed to be playable for people who start off knowing nothing about rocketry. I feel like people who care enough about the field of rocketry and space exploration to want to use something like BDB are generally also people who care enough about the field of rocketry and space exploration to learn to do things in a somewhat less cartoonish manner than the stock game (and the stock scale solar system) is designed for.

[GoldForest]

19 minutes ago, Rodger said:

I’m also personally not super keen on making a nerf patch for 1300+ parts to suit 1/10th scale systems lol

You could maybe try installing Tweakscale Rescaled and shrink all your rockets in-game. Or like is recommended in the thread OP, try installing the JNSQ planet pack which is a 2.5x (or 2.66) scale pack by default, still based on the stock system. KSRSS is another 2.5x option with real life planets. Or just a rescale patch for kopernicus+sigma dimensions.

Instead of going through all 1300 parts one by one, couldn't you just make a MM file that plays at the end of BDB's loading that goes in and just reduces all values across the board? Doesn't MM support equations such as "Thrust(Vac) = N * 0.4" (This would turn it from 25% thrust to 10%)

Not saying do it, just asking if this could be done.

Edited June 15 by GoldForest

[Zorg]

29 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Instead of going through all 1300 parts one by one, couldn't you just make a MM file that plays at the end of BDB's loading that goes in and just reduces all values across the board? Doesn't MM support equations such as "Thrust(Vac) = N * 0.4" (This would turn it from 25% thrust to 10%)

Not saying do it, just asking if this could be done.

That’s more of less what SMURFF did. To buff parts for even larger scales. I dunno if it had a nerf. Anyway this isn’t something I intend to give a lot of thought to even as a thought experiment but you can do… something certainly. But even then BdB is complex with a lot of b9 switches etc. 

[Tangle]

4 hours ago, harveylates said:

help its too op in the stock system

 

try whirligig world, it's not a higher scale but it's got unique difficulties that make it more fun to use larger rockets

[Neil Kerman]

Hi, I am having two, probably unrelated, problems with some of the parts from your mod.

The first issue is that certain uncrewed command modules, (Notably for me the Apollo subsatellite) apparently have zero electric charge. I've noticed that the uncrewed command modules which have this issue are generally the ones which have the solar panels integrated into the actual part (Vanguard 1, Explorer 7, ETC). They also show zero Megajoules, which leads me to believe that this problem may be related to the KSP Interstellar Extended mod but I want to know for certain if this is the case or if I'm totally wrong and the issue is being caused by something else altogether.

My second issue is that I right clicked the Apollo Service Module tank in the VAB and afterwards whenever I right clicked on parts no information came up. No idea what caused it.

Please find a link to my logs at the bottom of this post

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/xhhm8pyp7ina2ky7avvpv/AJGeDa-K21IB8j8JztmCRiI?rlkey=48pphofzxh0ufmg2buni6b5w8&st=onbkuiqt&dl=0

 

[zakkpaz]

@Rodger I think you’re the guy doing bug fixes on github so I guess you’re the one to tell this to, I’ve noticed two bugs

the LM EVA antenna is bugged, it floats above whatever it attaches.

 

and the Mercury drogue parachute deployed lower that it’s supposed to, the connecting cables passes through it.

 

sorry if this is your job to fix, I just noticed a lot of bug fixes going on.

[Rodger]

1 hour ago, zakkpaz said:

@Rodger I think you’re the guy doing bug fixes on github so I guess you’re the one to tell this to, I’ve noticed two bugs

the LM EVA antenna is bugged, it floats above whatever it attaches.

 

and the Mercury drogue parachute deployed lower that it’s supposed to, the connecting cables passes through it.

 

sorry if this is your job to fix, I just noticed a lot of bug fixes going on.

All good, please do report issues to me! I've fixed the antenna (the VHF one I think you meant, the EVA one seemed fine), but it's up to cobalt for the drogue chute. But I've made an issue so he can get to it when he can.

 

1 hour ago, Neil Kerman said:

Hi, I am having two, probably unrelated, problems with some of the parts from your mod.

The first issue is that certain uncrewed command modules, (Notably for me the Apollo subsatellite) apparently have zero electric charge. I've noticed that the uncrewed command modules which have this issue are generally the ones which have the solar panels integrated into the actual part (Vanguard 1, Explorer 7, ETC). They also show zero Megajoules, which leads me to believe that this problem may be related to the KSP Interstellar Extended mod but I want to know for certain if this is the case or if I'm totally wrong and the issue is being caused by something else altogether.

My second issue is that I right clicked the Apollo Service Module tank in the VAB and afterwards whenever I right clicked on parts no information came up. No idea what caused it.

Please find a link to my logs at the bottom of this post

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/xhhm8pyp7ina2ky7avvpv/AJGeDa-K21IB8j8JztmCRiI?rlkey=48pphofzxh0ufmg2buni6b5w8&st=onbkuiqt&dl=0

 

For the EC, that's going to be incompatibility with Interstellar Extended, and we don't provide support for that on our side. If they provide patches for BDB, they may need to be updated, so you could report it to them.

The right click will be due to some other mod, and I'm immediately suspect of KSP Recall. I'd recommend uninstalling that version of tweakscale and it's dependencies, and install Tweakscale Rescaled instead.

[Pappystein]

On 6/14/2024 at 3:53 PM, DaveyJ576 said:

I am running the risk of raining on your parade, but Dennis Jenkins and Tony Landis stated in their book that the XB-70/X-15 combo was never given serious consideration. While the advantages of this type of air launch were well understood, the high speed physics of separating the X-15 mounted in piggyback mode scared the crap out of everyone. There had been a fatal accident with the SR-71/D-21 combo at separation, and even the successful releases were always quite sporty. After the initial concept look, the XB-70/X-15 idea was quickly dropped and never revisited.

Even the drops from the B-52 were not smooth. The X-15 got a bit squirrely right at release due to air flow off the trailing edge of the 52’s wing. The X-15 pilot had to fight it for a few seconds to prevent a potentially disastrous recontact with the 52’s fuselage and wing.

On the other hand this is KSP after all, and I don’t think Jeb et al. are worried about a little bumping and shaking… 

Correction… It was actually an A-12 variant called the M-21 that launched the D-21 drone. The A-12 was the precursor to the SR-71. 

Yes and the M-21/D-21 incident did lead to the cancellation of these concepts.     But there was a group of aerodynamicsts and Physicists who pointed out that the B-70 and the A-12/SR-70 are aerodynamically VERY different aircraft.   Also the X-15 would be mounted 3x higher off the wing than the M-21/D-21 combo with Vertical fins instead of inward canted fins (which is what the D-21 actually struck first.)    And lastly, The D-21 had a rudimentary Autopilot that couldn't compensate for anything (exactly how many D-21 pods were recovered.... 1!)    So on the scale of tolerances; we are talking about is almost an order of a magnitude greater than the very tightly fit M-21/D-21.    All that being said.  Yes I agree this was risky.   

(Note the D-21 wingtips are almost the same width as the rudders!)

Re the B-52/X-15 issue.     It couldn't at all have to do with the fact they had to cut a huge NOTCH out of the B-52s wing and the eddy and vortice generated were striking the rudder directly on the X-15.    B-52 was not an ideal launch platform for something the Size of the X-15.   If the B-36 would have been able to fly Faster/Higher it Might have been ok.   There was even talk about re-tasking one of the two YB-60s (B-36 with 8 J57s and swept wings) to carry the X-15 in the bomb bay like the B-36 did with its FICON aircraft (Which dropped away, flew their mission and then RETURNED and landed in the B-36 Bomb bay! (In theory)   Note the B-60 would not actually do well because the wing was so thick (it was just a B-36 wing with a new center section that gave it a 35 degree sweep) that the B-60 could barely fly once it actually flew and it's handling was... in a word... atrocious.

 

Look how thick the wing is!   It is still the worlds largest (in size) all jet bomber aircraft in the world.  

The Bomb-bay, when equipped with cutouts for the wings, could hold an X-15 similar to how Maestro carried the X-1 and X-2s.   I actually know one of the Engineers who flew on Maestro for some of those fascinating X-plane flights.

BTW Said engineer was scheduled to fly on the X-1-3 flight under the B-50 mother-ship (I don't remember that one's name now)   At the end of the flight (they did not drop the X-1) they were de-fuling the X-1 when the plane exploded.  

 

 

The F-84 there is roughly 4/5ths the size fuselage to fuselage of an X-15.     In the Case of the FICON the tail goes into the bomb-bay.

 

Edited June 15 by Pappystein

[Pappystein]

On 6/14/2024 at 3:53 PM, DaveyJ576 said:

 Dennis Jenkins and Tony Landis stated in their book that the XB-70/X-15 combo was never given serious consideration. While the advantages of this type of air launch were well understood, the high speed physics of separating the X-15 mounted in piggyback mode scared the crap out of everyone.

I forgot to mention, I did not know how great the Dennis Jenkins books were until the Valk book was well out of print.  I am hoping it gets reprinted at some point!

It is the only "Big name" Valkyrie book I do not own.

 

Also RE the previous post.  in the B-60 photo, if you look just inboard of the inner Pylon you can clearly see the seam between the old B-36 wing and the new center-section!   According to one of the engineers, you could tell the wing was actually made for a B-36 because it had spots where the piston engine nacelles would tuck up under the leading edge clearly marked out.   Literally the wings were started for A B-36 and converted to the B-60 wing!

Edited June 15 by Pappystein

[Pappystein]

On 6/14/2024 at 5:52 PM, GoldForest said:

Atlas · Issue #974 · CobaltWolf/Bluedog-Design-Bureau · GitHub

MSD is on the checklist.

MSD - Gunter's Space Page (skyrocket.de)

MSD was basically a payload bus. It's actually in the name, "Multiple Satellite Dispenser."  It also uses the Altair as a main body, so it was also a kick stage in a way? 

Ah. Gotcha.

There is the Equally Fun TSD (Titan Satellite Dispenser)... which is a giant Hexagon with holes in it and they hold the various satellites that were dispensed from it (Navy Ocean Recon Sats if my memory serves)   That was interesting because the satellite was in one of 8 "rectangular Cells" surrounding the central engine.   Imagine if you had 8 Cube Sats arranged around an engine and fuel tank for an idea of how it would look (it is neat but not real Lego-able)

[Madeline]

why do my kerbals wear helmets inside the gemini pod?

[Lisias]

3 hours ago, Madeline said:

why do my kerbals wear helmets inside the gemini pod?

Because they really used helmets all time.

https://www.nasa.gov/history/55-years-ago-gemini-5-sets-a-new-record/

Not only they were still wetting their feet in space (and, so, environment pressurization wasn't a priority yet), Gemini capsules had ejection seats - and the astronauts must be wearing their helmets to survive such traumatic event (that was never needed, no one is complaining!)

 

[septemberWaves]

Gemini really was a deathtrap, as much as it's an iconic spacecraft I'm amazed it never killed anyone.

[GoldForest]

9 hours ago, Pappystein said:

There is the Equally Fun TSD (Titan Satellite Dispenser)... which is a giant Hexagon with holes in it and they hold the various satellites that were dispensed from it (Navy Ocean Recon Sats if my memory serves)   That was interesting because the satellite was in one of 8 "rectangular Cells" surrounding the central engine.   Imagine if you had 8 Cube Sats arranged around an engine and fuel tank for an idea of how it would look (it is neat but not real Lego-able)

SLDCOM (TLD) - Gunter's Space Page (skyrocket.de)

Found it.  Also, it's TLD, not TSD. 

Also, only picture of TLD is on Gunter's as well. 

And I can't find any documents relating to it. Probably won't. It's the US Armed Forces. Doubt a FOIA request would do anything either, since it's military communications. Yeah, it's old tech, but if they use any part of that tech today still, they'll protect it. Plus, the satellites are still up there. I doubt they're still working, but you never know. Hubble is 30 years old and it still works. 

[Aussie Toad Stool]

21 hours ago, Zorg said:

If you use 2.5x scale it will be quite realistic. Just like stock parts. 

I was playing at that rescale for a while, but now moved to 3.2x scale. How do you think the balancing holds up at that point?

[Zorg]

26 minutes ago, Aussie Toad Stool said:

I was playing at that rescale for a while, but now moved to 3.2x scale. How do you think the balancing holds up at that point?

Never tried it. Some of the smaller rockets might struggle. Not sure how the mid size will do. The very large rockets should be fine. Since KSP fuel mass fractions are higher than IRL, larger rockets gain more advantage from their size relative to the real world.

[Rodger]

Even some smaller rockets have a decent excess of dv in 2.5x. The higher dv requirements for orbit might hit Saturn 1B pretty hard though lol

Edited June 16 by Rodger