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

[Pappystein]

9 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Chiming in here with some thoughts.

The Eyes Turned Skyward Saturn 1C is a fairly unrealistic design. I could make several arguments as to why, but there's one big one - nothing like it was ever studied IRL. No monotank S-1, no single F-1, etc. So in terms of plausibility it's more or less off the table. Something that comes up a lot is, as great as ETS is, it wasn't researched and written to the same standard as later space alt histories. The Saturn 1C is the result of the combination of switching to an orbital rather than lunar program, along with the authors' desire to keep the F-1 in production.

 

Actually the Monotank S-I stage was looked into for the 1961 Saturn C-2.  At the time, (prior to the Kennedy moon speech) there was a planned contiguous production.   However with the "refocus" on TO THE MOON, concepts were slashed and everything not necessary for the Moon was left off the drawing-board so to speak.

There are engineering drawings in my Saturn C-2 article.  The source clearly stated that in 1961, it was planned that the second batch would be Monohulls.   No second batch was ever ordered....

9 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

The Saturn 1B INTs were looked into, such as the ones with UA-120 boosters, but no matter what you still wind up having to keep producing the S-1B stage. The INT Saturns weren't just meant to fill the gap in payload capability - they were also meant to reduce to total number of production lines needed for various stages. Since the S-1B was only used for the Saturn 1B, it was primed on the chopping block.

Yeah only the INT-5 family and the all 5-9 UA-1205/UA-1207 stage families did away with the S-IB stage... problem is you were still making new things so you weren't saving much

 

RE INT-20 being a Front-runner.    That was in the Boeing MLV study...   Where they were trying very hard to push anything that would allow them to keep the "we are about to take over NAA-Rockwell" so lets keep the S-II-360 stage in production...    Other MLV studies (Douglas for Example) looked to other things.    Everyone got rid of S-IB (cluster sucks duh)  But No one could replace it WELL without doing a proper monohull re-engineer of the S-IM

In NASA proper it was less concrete... and more... "well we kinda have to think about something in the future so lets do SOMETHING..."   But no one at NASA had a true roadmap for their peers to follow.      It is this lack of leadership for thing beyond MOON NAO that led to boondoggles like the Big Gemini getting the funding it got.

 

 

[Elro2k]

Hello! Sorry if this question has been asked before (I did some looking but I couldn't find anything)

Is there any way to get shiny textures for Atlas, similar to the new Apollo CSM textures? 

[CobaltWolf]

15 hours ago, Richmountain112 said:

Also, why can the experiments that come with this mod only be performed a limited number of times before they stop working?

I'm not sure what you mean, which experiments are you talking about? I'm sure it will jog my aging memory.

 

15 hours ago, Pappystein said:

Actually the Monotank S-I stage was looked into for the 1961 Saturn C-2.  At the time, (prior to the Kennedy moon speech) there was a planned contiguous production.   However with the "refocus" on TO THE MOON, concepts were slashed and everything not necessary for the Moon was left off the drawing-board so to speak.

There are engineering drawings in my Saturn C-2 article.  The source clearly stated that in 1961, it was planned that the second batch would be Monohulls.   No second batch was ever ordered....

True, but I think there's a big difference between early 60s planning and the mid 60s planning for follow-ons to actual built hardware. There's certainly no mention of monotank S-1 that I've seen in those studies.

 

3 hours ago, Elro2k said:

Hello! Sorry if this question has been asked before (I did some looking but I couldn't find anything)

Is there any way to get shiny textures for Atlas, similar to the new Apollo CSM textures? 

I'm not sure if BellaTU is updated, that would be my best guess.

[bigyihsuan]

1 hour ago, CobaltWolf said:

I'm not sure if BellaTU is updated, that would be my best guess.

Last update was April 2022, so everything after about v1.10.1 hasn't been looked at.

[Richmountain112]

8 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

I'm not sure what you mean, which experiments are you talking about? I'm sure it will jog my aging memory.

I meant specifically the Apollo CSM experiments plus the LM Materials Study. 4 of them stopped working and wouldn't make any more data after I collected all of the experiments with the 5-Kerbal Kane Command Pod

Edited May 11, 2023 by Richmountain112

[Invaderchaos]

Working on Kepler again. Trying a new foil technique, here are the results!

[Elro2k]

7 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

I'm not sure if BellaTU is updated, that would be my best guess.

That worked, thank you so much!! Atlas is my go-to launch vehicle for the beginning of any career, so this makes my crafts look 100 times better!

[shakuvendell]

5 hours ago, Richmountain112 said:

I meant specifically the Apollo CSM experiments plus the LM Materials Study. 4 of them stopped working and wouldn't make any more data after I collected all of the experiments with the 5-Kerbal Kane Command Pod

Is it possible that you're running them from an experiment tracker, via All Y'all, or another mod that runs experiments indirectly as a group? Iirc, DMModuleScienceAnimateGeneric doesn't like that. Experiments that animate via DMModuleScienceAnimateGeneric tend to jam up. Probably have to run them by hand, via the PAW.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

[Richmountain112]

9 hours ago, shakuvendell said:

Is it possible that you're running them from an experiment tracker, via All Y'all, or another mod that runs experiments indirectly as a group? Iirc, DMModuleScienceAnimateGeneric doesn't like that. Experiments that animate via DMModuleScienceAnimateGeneric tend to jam up. Probably have to run them by hand, via the PAW.

Yes. I'm using [X] Science! Does that cause problems? Plus I used "Collect All" on the Kane command pod.

Specifically I ran them through the Here and Now window.

Note to self: NEVER run science experiments from this mod using the Here and Now window from [X] Science!

Edited May 11, 2023 by Richmountain112

[PyroZene]

Yea, [X] Science has a habit of breaking part if they're ran through the here and now window. Learned that the hard way a few times.

[CobaltWolf]

17 hours ago, Richmountain112 said:

I meant specifically the Apollo CSM experiments plus the LM Materials Study. 4 of them stopped working and wouldn't make any more data after I collected all of the experiments with the 5-Kerbal Kane Command Pod

12 hours ago, shakuvendell said:

Is it possible that you're running them from an experiment tracker, via All Y'all, or another mod that runs experiments indirectly as a group? Iirc, DMModuleScienceAnimateGeneric doesn't like that. Experiments that animate via DMModuleScienceAnimateGeneric tend to jam up. Probably have to run them by hand, via the PAW.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

2 hours ago, Richmountain112 said:

Yes. I'm using [X] Science! Does that cause problems? Plus I used "Collect All" on the Kane command pod.

Specifically I ran them through the Here and Now window.

Note to self: NEVER run science experiments from this mod using the Here and Now window from [X] Science!

57 minutes ago, PyroZene said:

Yea, [X] Science has a habit of breaking part if they're ran through the here and now window. Learned that the hard way a few times.

This is really sad, but I don't actually spend enough time in game to have real answers for this. But I did think of one thing - aren't a lot of the experiments mentioned meant to be reset by a Kerbal on EVA? Is it possible the data was being collected without the experiment being reset?

Or is it just the [X] Science issue?

 

In other news, I have enough to share for my current project: Reworking the Helios probes. I was never really happy with the quality of these parts - they were some of the last probe parts made before the big revamp that redid most of the other probes (Ranger, Lunar Orbiter, etc) to a much higher standard. So, I decided to give it some love.

I must say, including the damper cables for the magnetometer arms REALLY improves the vibe of this probe.

[Blufor878]

The other day I learned of a proposal to give robotic arms to the Apollo spacecraft.

Well that led to this

[Pappystein]

Thought I would post the actual monotank drawing from the Saturn C-2 Preliminary design.

The Saturn C-1 tank would have been 525" Long vs the 496 of the Saturn C-2

That is a Central Fuel sump that spiders out to 8 H-1 or H-2 engines.  The central "node" is not an engine.  So with this setup the Saturn would have a "Ring" Arrangement and all engines would gimbal.

[RocketBoy1641]

May not be in game tonight as much as I had planned.  Geeking out with the Haynes Saturn V Oners Workshop Manual and the Skylab Owners Workshop Manual from the same...

[Richmountain112]

Also, reentry from Jool (Haven't tested it) and Sarnus caused the Kane Command pod to explode.

Edited May 21, 2023 by Richmountain112

[Blufor878]

8 hours ago, Pappystein said:

Thought I would post the actual monotank drawing from the Saturn C-2 Preliminary design.

The Saturn C-1 tank would have been 525" Long vs the 496 of the Saturn C-2

That is a Central Fuel sump that spiders out to 8 H-1 or H-2 engines.  The central "node" is not an engine.  So with this setup the Saturn would have a "Ring" Arrangement and all engines would gimbal.

Do you have more information on these monotank proposals? I might have something brewing in my head.

Edited May 12, 2023 by Blufor878

[RocketBoy1641]

5 hours ago, Richmountain112 said:

Also, reentry from Jool and Sarnus caused the Kane Command pod to explode.

Perhaps liberal breaking burn is needed.  If memory serves, the Mars Flyby would have needed several hundred pounds of additional heat shield.

Perhaps even a Mun flyby on the return for a breaking?  Ya, I know that is getting to Jeb level manovering.

 

[Friznit]

16 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

This is really sad, but I don't actually spend enough time in game to have real answers for this. But I did think of one thing - aren't a lot of the experiments mentioned meant to be reset by a Kerbal on EVA? Is it possible the data was being collected without the experiment being reset?

Or is it just the [X] Science issue?

It's a long-time known [X] Science issue related to sample-type  experiments with animated parts.  Basically it runs the experiment without running the animation, so the part get stuck in a state where it's run but not run and the game has a hissy fit so you can neither recover the sample nor reset the experiment.  Bottom line is don't use [X]Science Here & Now to run experiments.

[Richmountain112]

4 hours ago, RocketBoy1641 said:

Perhaps liberal breaking burn is needed.  If memory serves, the Mars Flyby would have needed several hundred pounds of additional heat shield.

Perhaps even a Mun flyby on the return for a breaking?  Ya, I know that is getting to Jeb level manovering.

The actual command pod exploded. And returning from Sarnus, there wasn't enough fuel for the braking burn.

I just resorted to cheating.

And usually I ready up the parachutes during SM and Orbital Module jettison.

Edited May 12, 2023 by Richmountain112

[Pappystein]

7 hours ago, Blufor878 said:

Do you have more information on these monotank proposals? I might have something brewing in my head.

For the Saturn C-1 the fuel load would be roughly the same as the S-I/S-IB stages.    That is why the S-IM (as I call it) was 29" longer than the S-IM(C-2) in the drawing.     YES the C-2 flew with less first stage fuel than the Saturn I.

But beyond that not really.   It was a preliminary design for a rocket that was never built after all

 

[OrbitalManeuvers]

3 hours ago, Friznit said:

Bottom line is don't use [X]Science Here & Now to run experiments.

Or possibly try ScienceAlert. I don't think it has these same issues. There was a release where LGG specifically addressed dmagic-type experiments.

29 minutes ago, Richmountain112 said:

The actual command pod exploded. And returning from Sarnus, there wasn't enough fuel for the braking burn.

Idk how reasonable it is to expect hardware that's rated for lunar return velocities to survive interplanetary return velocities. 

[Ultim32]

12 hours ago, RocketBoy1641 said:

May not be in game tonight as much as I had planned.  Geeking out with the Haynes Saturn V Oners Workshop Manual and the Skylab Owners Workshop Manual from the same...

I also have those books, along with the Shuttle Manual and the ISS Manual. They're really great books.

[Blufor878]

1 hour ago, Pappystein said:

For the Saturn C-1 the fuel load would be roughly the same as the S-I/S-IB stages.    That is why the S-IM (as I call it) was 29" longer than the S-IM(C-2) in the drawing.     YES the C-2 flew with less first stage fuel than the Saturn I.

But beyond that not really.   It was a preliminary design for a rocket that was never built after all

 

Well, I guess that's where I come in.



The satellite is nothing special. I just wanted to play with the more unusual solar panels in the mod. I'm not sure what to call the rocket. I've named it the Saturn M2 for now, but I may change it later.

[RocketBoy1641]

8 hours ago, Richmountain112 said:

The actual command pod exploded. And returning from Sarnus, there wasn't enough fuel for the braking burn.

I just resorted to cheating.

And usually I ready up the parachutes during SM and Orbital Module jettison.

I got that you said exploded.  My point was that Mars, which should have a much lower m/s speed had massive heatshield requirements compared to the "fast" speed of a Lunar reentry that had been the reentry speed record.  Yes, things will go BOOM when enough of a shock is exerted and things may also very quickly get overheated and (in game mechanics - explode) and melt enough to break up.  To quote a character from Fringe, William Bell, "physics is a b!tch."

On 5/9/2023 at 8:11 PM, Pappystein said:

Actually the Monotank S-I stage was looked into for the 1961 Saturn C-2.  At the time, (prior to the Kennedy moon speech) there was a planned contiguous production.   However with the "refocus" on TO THE MOON, concepts were slashed and everything not necessary for the Moon was left off the drawing-board so to speak.

There are engineering drawings in my Saturn C-2 article.  The source clearly stated that in 1961, it was planned that the second batch would be Monohulls.   No second batch was ever ordered....

Yeah only the INT-5 family and the all 5-9 UA-1205/UA-1207 stage families did away with the S-IB stage... problem is you were still making new things so you weren't saving much

 

RE INT-20 being a Front-runner.    That was in the Boeing MLV study...   Where they were trying very hard to push anything that would allow them to keep the "we are about to take over NAA-Rockwell" so lets keep the S-II-360 stage in production...    Other MLV studies (Douglas for Example) looked to other things.    Everyone got rid of S-IB (cluster sucks duh)  But No one could replace it WELL without doing a proper monohull re-engineer of the S-IM

In NASA proper it was less concrete... and more... "well we kinda have to think about something in the future so lets do SOMETHING..."   But no one at NASA had a true roadmap for their peers to follow.      It is this lack of leadership for thing beyond MOON NAO that led to boondoggles like the Big Gemini getting the funding it got.

 

 

In regards to the craft file for the S-1C, I noted that it needs vernier thrusters added.  It isn't a big thing....but roll control would have been needed.

Edited May 12, 2023 by RocketBoy1641

[Richmountain112]

10 hours ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:

Idk how reasonable it is to expect hardware that's rated for lunar return velocities to survive interplanetary return velocities. 

2 hours ago, RocketBoy1641 said:

I got that you said exploded.  My point was that Mars, which should have a much lower m/s speed had massive heatshield requirements compared to the "fast" speed of a Lunar reentry that had been the reentry speed record.  Yes, things will go BOOM when enough of a shock is exerted and things may also very quickly get overheated and (in game mechanics - explode) and melt enough to break up.  To quote a character from Fringe, William Bell, "physics is a b!tch."

I'm using Stock system + OPM and Planet Cyran. The 2.5m stock heatshield can survive from Neidon but the Kane-11 one can't? The stock 1.25m heatshield was able to survive reentry from Urlum. I considered using a stock heatshield but it looked ugly.

Edited May 12, 2023 by Richmountain112