Rodger Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 The whatnow?? Is that an optional patch? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldForest Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 (edited) Ah, nevermind, sorry, it's not BDB's F-1, it just uses the BDB F-1 model. Edited June 25 by GoldForest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldForest Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 @CobaltWolf So, just read your tweets. Saw you mentioned nuclear Orion. Are you actually considering it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobaltWolf Posted June 25 Author Share Posted June 25 33 minutes ago, GoldForest said: @CobaltWolf So, just read your tweets. Saw you mentioned nuclear Orion. Are you actually considering it? No, it was something I briefly considered for KSP2. I honestly don’t see a need for it in KSP1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldForest Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 (edited) 25 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said: No, it was something I briefly considered for KSP2. I honestly don’t see a need for it in KSP1. The smallest Orion would be good for Duna or even Jool missions tbh. Especially for colonies. Edited June 25 by GoldForest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zakkpaz Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 Ages ago someone on here posted a TUFX profile meant to look like NASA’s old publicly photos, the ones taken with Kodachrome and Ektachrome. Does anyone have a link to it? I want my game to look like this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biohazard15 Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 Speaking of Methalox: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20090026004 Seems that LMAE (names RS-18 in this document) was successfully tested with methalox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coyotesfrontier Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 3 hours ago, biohazard15 said: Speaking of Methalox: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20090026004 Seems that LMAE (names RS-18 in this document) was successfully tested with methalox. Believe it or not, that engine actually already exists in Nertea's Cryogenic Engines mod: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacktical Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 4 hours ago, zakkpaz said: Ages ago someone on here posted a TUFX profile meant to look like NASA’s old publicly photos, the ones taken with Kodachrome and Ektachrome. Does anyone have a link to it? I want my game to look like this You could try my columbia profile Shuttle Profiles Pack on SpaceDock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biohazard15 Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 1 hour ago, coyotesfrontier said: Believe it or not, that engine actually already exists in Nertea's Cryogenic Engines mod: Totally forgot about that mod Still, it would be cool to have a methalox B9 config for BDB LMAE. Being non-gimballed, it's more compact and weighs less, which gives you another option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobaltWolf Posted June 25 Author Share Posted June 25 8 hours ago, zakkpaz said: Ages ago someone on here posted a TUFX profile meant to look like NASA’s old publicly photos, the ones taken with Kodachrome and Ektachrome. Does anyone have a link to it? I want my game to look like this So cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razgriz1 Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 I'm going to ask this here since y'all have all kinds of reference documents saved away: Does anyone know when Centaur switched from using HTP reaction control thrusters to hydrazine? I suspect it was Centaur II (Atlas II/III), but I have yet to find any source to back that up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobaltWolf Posted June 26 Author Share Posted June 26 13 hours ago, Razgriz1 said: I'm going to ask this here since y'all have all kinds of reference documents saved away: Does anyone know when Centaur switched from using HTP reaction control thrusters to hydrazine? I suspect it was Centaur II (Atlas II/III), but I have yet to find any source to back that up. The change happened for Atlas G. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_G#Centaur_upper_stage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobaltWolf Posted June 26 Author Share Posted June 26 (edited) On 2/21/2024 at 12:41 PM, CobaltWolf said: The biggest thing left is the scan platform, which is nominally still Invader's problem and not mine. It was not, in fact, Invader's problem. I'm going to be finishing Mariner 6/7, which also means Mariner 8/9 will be finished since they need the scan platform. Very exciting. Edited June 26 by CobaltWolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldForest Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 So 1.14 is shaping up to be the mixed/grab bag update huh? X-15, various engines, Atlas, probes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minmus Taster Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 1 hour ago, CobaltWolf said: It was not, in fact, Invader's problem. I'm going to be finishing Mariner 6/7, which also means Mariner 8/9 will be finished since they need the scan platform. Very exciting. Bit of a silly question, were Mariner 8/9 just 6/7 models with a big fuel tank added on top? They look very similar to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pappystein Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 16 hours ago, CobaltWolf said: So cool. Yep, the ONLY advantage to the Ejection seats was this view here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobaltWolf Posted June 26 Author Share Posted June 26 10 minutes ago, GoldForest said: So 1.14 is shaping up to be the mixed/grab bag update huh? X-15, various engines, Atlas, probes. Yes but to be fair, that's what a lot of our updates are since me/Zorg/Invader tend to work on completely different projects. But yeah, that's about the scope of it I think. We're not anywhere close to release but I don't think the scope will get any wider. We all have vague plans/ideas for the following update but nothing is concrete - just know that BDB isn't going away any time soon (Not that I think anyone was worried, what with all the activity around here). 8 minutes ago, Minmus Taster said: Bit of a silly question, were Mariner 8/9 just 6/7 models with a big fuel tank added on top? They look very similar to me. Pretty much! You can think of Mariner 8/9 as being an orbital version of 6/7. In addition to the propulsion module, there are some other changes for 8/9 - the solar panels are on outriggers instead of connecting to the top edges of the core, the LGA is shorter, the HGA is moved outboard, and a medium gain horn antenna was added. The core (or at least, it's structure) was shared with the Mariners all the way back to 3, while the solars (save the aforementioned mount changes), star trackers, and science platform are shared with 6/7. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pappystein Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 2 hours ago, CobaltWolf said: The change happened for Atlas G. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_G#Centaur_upper_stage Funny enough. Centaur D.1AR is not a Centaur D.1A with new insulation like Wikipeda would suggest. Rather it is the Shuttle Centaur D.1R brought to life. D.1R was "stepped over" for what became Centaur G/G'. But during the process to "man rate" and "Shuttlefy" the Centaur, they had already made the changes to eliminate the highly reactive H2O2 from the stage. Hydrazine, while a reactive chemical, is much easier to control than Hydrogen Peroxide at the percentages we are talking about. Since all future RL10s would be Hydrogen Peroxide free, A new Centaur Stage had to be made. NASA dusted off the now almost 10 year old plans for D.1R and designed a new insulation shell, since the D.1A's shell was not comparable and was in fact out of production with no tooling remaining. Why NASA couldn't contract for the D.1A's insulation to be made? Simple this was post Challenger failure.... Prior to Challenger, the manufactures were ordered to destroy any tooling for out of production stages. Atlas Centaur was considered out of production. The tooling had yet to be destroyed for Atlas or centaur tank-age, but the subcontractor for the insulation panels did destroy their molds. This is also why the RS27 power block replaces the LR89 powerblock on Atlas I Because the LR89 powerblock tooling no longer existed. RS27 is a derivative of LR79... so is LR89 so it fits! (And yes it is MUCH more nuanced than I am saying here... this is a sorta TL:DR version of what actually happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socowez Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 On 6/25/2024 at 11:24 AM, zakkpaz said: While this image is still fresh, what's the policy on flotation devices for capsules like in this picture? Is it "Gee we never thought to implement these, We'll get right to it" or "Screw you and your stupid kiddie floaties, go bother someone else about it"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldForest Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 46 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said: Yes but to be fair, that's what a lot of our updates are since me/Zorg/Invader tend to work on completely different projects. But yeah, that's about the scope of it I think. We're not anywhere close to release but I don't think the scope will get any wider. We all have vague plans/ideas for the following update but nothing is concrete - just know that BDB isn't going away any time soon (Not that I think anyone was worried, what with all the activity around here). Pretty much! You can think of Mariner 8/9 as being an orbital version of 6/7. In addition to the propulsion module, there are some other changes for 8/9 - the solar panels are on outriggers instead of connecting to the top edges of the core, the LGA is shorter, the HGA is moved outboard, and a medium gain horn antenna was added. The core (or at least, it's structure) was shared with the Mariners all the way back to 3, while the solars (save the aforementioned mount changes), star trackers, and science platform are shared with 6/7. Hmmm. Any plans to bring the X-20 into BDB in a future update? I know Well has a mod for it, but I would love to see what a full fledged BDB X-20 would be like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta 86 Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 @Socowez There's a mod for that, which already has patches for BDB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobaltWolf Posted June 26 Author Share Posted June 26 1 hour ago, Socowez said: While this image is still fresh, what's the policy on flotation devices for capsules like in this picture? Is it "Gee we never thought to implement these, We'll get right to it" or "Screw you and your stupid kiddie floaties, go bother someone else about it"? I like that there's only those two options. 1 hour ago, GoldForest said: Hmmm. Any plans to bring the X-20 into BDB in a future update? I know Well has a mod for it, but I would love to see what a full fledged BDB X-20 would be like. No plans but if I did I'd probably just clean up the textures instead of making one from scratch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pappystein Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 (edited) How to build the Atlas F ICBM into a space launcher!: ps this is the ORIGIONAL proposed Atlas F... not what was actually built! Step 1) Realize this thing's Fuel tanks are TALLER than Atlas III. Step 1a) wait, Centaur Jr comes from here?! Step 2) Spoiler You are going to be using several tanks in this setup. Thankfully it is just two parts, The Atlas Extension Balloon tank x3 in two different lenghts! And then the base Atlas Tankage. Your First Atlas Extension Balloon Tank, should be set to J1-A/U Your Second And Third Atlas Extension Balloon Tanks should both be set to SLV-3C Your Atlas 3400 Core Tank, should be set to Atlas F (or floating pipes will be a thing!) Your Engine selection: Using the Saturn H-1D model, you will set the outer two engines to H-2-250kN. The Center sustainer engine will be an H-1D-1973 The Original Atlas F proposal from 1960ish suggested that an improved LR105 would be developed Utilizing design features from the X-1 engine. X-1 is the testbed engine that Rocketdyne developed the H-2 Turbopump on (or at least started too) as well as all the thrust improvements over the years of the Saturn and then later RS-27 program for Delta. For our purposes however it is just easier for an H-1D to be utilized. Incidentally the H-1C, while probably more correct (no gimbal) is not advisable. In my test flight I had a skirt hangup on it. I did not investigate. Just like any Atlas, fee free to investigate at what mass your rocket can attain 1:1 TWR with just the core Sustainer (H-1D) and twin LR-101s running (do so by removing fuel until the TWR is 1:1) then, re-attach the skirt, check the TWR, And set that number (in my case it was 2.8 TWR with light fuel and all 5 engines) as your jettison point for the skirt. I do have recovery programs in my game so the parachutes on the Atlas E/F skirt will be recovered to save funds. Magnificant! you have an Atlas F(ICBM) derived booster. YEs this thing is truly the big stick (lenght wise) in the 10ft Bossart designed balloon Atlases. It is 16" longer than Atlas III between engine top and Centaur bottom. NOTES: This Atlas F ICBM is not what was eventually built. Convair knew a new generation of Nuclear warheads were coming, and logically were not told anything about their specification. They figured a growth in mass of about 50% (real ballpark here) and designed an Atlas that could haul that extra throw-weight with the same range performance as an Atlas D/E. This monster never left the drawing board and was replaced by the "Repeat Atlas E with new avionics" that we know as the Atlas F today. The H-2 engine was already under development when this program started and was a known factor for Convair and Rocketdyne. Remember the H-2 is just an H-1 with a re-designed combustion chamber (bigger injectors) and a higher speed Turbo-pump. CobaltWolf has already included the H-2 in two configurations on the H-1D based on the reaserch that several of us compiled together on this forum a couple years ago. The H-2 Engines in this build need to be rotated 90 degrees or they stick out of the skirt excessively I flew an Agena based payload for a future set of posts on this test flight, the Atlas F ICBM, was able to get the payload to a 200km orbit in JNSQ without issues. The Agena then finished circularization. Bonus, the test build I did with Atlas III tankage (this is UGLY A F) The tank choices I gave you above, result in a tank stack aproximatly 0.5 meters taller than the Atlas III stack shown here. That it about the difference between the two rockets in lenght. Edited June 26 by Pappystein Clarification. Thanks Zorg! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorg Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 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. 11 minutes ago, Pappystein said: How to build the Atlas F ICBM into a space launcher!: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.