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

[GoldForest]

34 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

Um, ORANGES, The various Chinese rocket mods (I don't use them I don't know how good they are but they are in development) 

Might want to stick your head into https://spacedock.info/kerbal-space-program/browse/updated    

and check it out

 

A lot of modders seem to have migrated to the "Wait and See" for KSP2...     And that is Totally fine.  We will see what happens

 

 

I mean, I knew I was missing/forgetting a lot. Guess I should have put "and a handful of others." At the end. Sorry. 

Edited June 13 by GoldForest

[Entr8899]

57 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

A lot of modders seem to have migrated to the "Wait and See" for KSP2...     And that is Totally fine.  We will see what happens

We've already seen what happened, and it was a trainwreck of nuclear proportions

[GoldForest]

4 minutes ago, Entr8899 said:

We've already seen what happened, and it was a trainwreck of nuclear proportions

 Intercept Games could very well pull what IOI did and go independent while also purchasing the KSP IP if the rumors of it being up for sale are true. We still have a week or two until the shutdown date I believe. 

[DeadJohn]

3 hours ago, Pappystein said:

6 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Also, considering BDB and Tantares and to some extent Knes and Commonwealth rocketry are the only IRL rocket mods still in full swing today, I'd say the "space" isn't being filled as much as it should be. I think a better approach would be, "We'll make it, but if anyone comes along and wants to make this same rocket, we'll retire ours." But that's just my opinion. It fills the void and allows for growth when able.

Um, ORANGES, The various Chinese rocket mods (I don't use them I don't know how good they are but they are in development) 

IMO, these mods have seen activity recently enough to be in full swing. Artemis Construction Kit, Starship Expansion Project, and several mods replicating niche smallsat launchers from new rocket companies.

(SEP will never be "finished" because Starship itself keeps changing. Next patch needs to add ablative fins )

4 hours ago, Pappystein said:

A lot of modders seem to have migrated to the "Wait and See" for KSP2...     And that is Totally fine.  We will see what happens

Ya'll on the BDB team took that stance for a while, correct? And then you saw KSP2's status and this thread welcomed your glorious return to KSP1 modding!

[Pappystein]

2 hours ago, DeadJohn said:

Ya'll on the BDB team took that stance for a while, correct?

To be clear, I am not on the BDB team.   I am honored that they allow me to post my history documents here because I prefer to write these things for people who appreciate them and can get into the nitty gritty of things that someone like anyone of us who have played this game for more than 15 minutes probably are. 

Also, I should be clear... Wait and see is what I said.    That was reflecting other modders.   As I remember, the BDB team took the stance of "we will make mod for it when official mod support is a thing"   I know the latest parts revamps were actually in part made to support KSP2, and in part made to bring old assets up to a higher standard of visual appeal (and add new features.) 

Again to be CLEAR these are my thoughts and memory and are not an official statement by Team BDB!

Edited June 14 by Pappystein

[Pappystein]

9 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

I didn't comment on this earlier because I was thinking about the Design of it.   So now:

1) What does the CW designate?
2) Completely Agree that F-1B is just F-1 with new manufacturing technique (really not even an F-1A with new manufacturing)
3) Since you are using the same combustion cycle but with a more RS-25 engine bell design (which is appropriate)  Why the particular color for the main bell?   I would think having it similar to RS-25 color would set it apart from say... NK-33 / RD-171 family looks.  I am seriously getting NK-33/43 thoughts when Looking at this.
4) Finally.  Thank you!  An upgrade F-1 engine would work well with MLV and maybe JUST maybe we can see less cursed rockets that shall not be named Just joking GoldForest, I know you will make a Saturn S-8 monster with these and launch something HUGE!

So you can see why I am asking about the color

 

Edited June 14 by Pappystein

[Zorg]

3 hours ago, DeadJohn said:

Ya'll on the BDB team took that stance for a while, correct? And then you saw KSP2's status and this thread welcomed your glorious return to KSP1 modding!

We took the stance of wait and see in the sense that we wouldn’t start work for KSP2 until a decent modding pipeline and support for key functionality like part switching (whether through official or modded options) was available. We never stopped working on KSP1. There was a bit of a months long dip that at least for my part didn’t have much to do with KSP2. And the resumption of the current fast pace of dev on Atlas and X15 happened before all the KSP2 news broke. 
 

as we’ve said before we’re disappointed with what happened with KSP2. It was a massive missed  opportunity. But we also now have the relief coming from having clarity about what’s ahead now. 

[Zorg]

5 hours ago, Pappystein said:

I didn't comment on this earlier because I was thinking about the Design of it.   So now:

1) What does the CW designate?

3) Since you are using the same combustion cycle but with a more RS-25 engine bell design (which is appropriate)  Why the particular color for the main bell?   I would think having it similar to RS-25 color would set it apart from say... NK-33 / RD-171 family looks.  I am seriously getting NK-33/43 thoughts when Looking at this.
4) Finally.  Thank you!  An upgrade F-1 engine would work well with MLV and maybe JUST maybe we can see less cursed rockets that shall not be named Just joking GoldForest, I know you will make a Saturn S-8 monster with these and launch something HUGE!

 

So you can see why I am asking about the color

 

The CW stands for channel wall (nozzle) hence the deliberate soviet styling inspiration. I like the way it looks tbh! It looks more F1 like still and we have an RS25 wannabe in the RS68 regen anyway

Edited June 14 by Zorg

[GoldForest]

5 hours ago, Pappystein said:

4) Finally.  Thank you!  An upgrade F-1 engine would work well with MLV and maybe JUST maybe we can see less cursed rockets that shall not be named Just joking GoldForest, I know you will make a Saturn S-8 monster with these and launch something HUGE!

I mean... the Saturn C-8/VIII is already a beast of a monster. Even loaded with Skylab, in a two-stage config, the first stage lasts for a LONG time. Engine cutoff is around 80km, that's basically 5km away from the KSP Karmen Line (2.5 scale). With this new higher thrust, and presumably higher efficiency, F-1CW engine, I imagine it WILL cross the Karmen Line. 

Even I admit that's ridiculous!

Edited June 14 by GoldForest

[Zorg]

35 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

I mean... the Saturn C-8/VIII is already a beast of a monster. Even loaded with Skylab, in a two-stage config, the first stage lasts for a LONG time. Engine cutoff is around 80km, that's basically 5km away from the KSP Karmen Line (2.5 scale). With this new higher thrust, and presumably higher efficiency, F-1CW engine, I imagine it WILL cross the Karmen Line. 

Even I admit that's ridiculous!

I just want to point out that the first stage crossing the Karman line during its burn is not unusual for rockets optimised for high energy orbits. Just about every typical mission profile detailed in the Atlas V users guide (on ULAs website) show stage sep well above the Karman line. Compare with Falcon 9 which usually separates around 65-75km. This would be less prevalent in KSP though due to scaling issues.

Edited June 14 by Zorg

[GoldForest]

1 hour ago, Zorg said:

I just want to point out that the first stage crossing the Karman line during its burn is not unusual for rockets optimised for high energy orbits. Just about every typical mission profile detailed in the Atlas V users guide (on ULAs website) show stage sep well above the Karman line. Compare with Falcon 9 which usually separates around 65-75km. This would be less prevalent in KSP though due to scaling issues.

 

True, but C-8 is a big rocket, and I'm comparing it to Saturn V. I would expect the First Stage to burn out well before the Karmen Line such as the Saturn V does. 

Edit: Then again, the 1st Stage is much bigger than the Saturn V, and the C-8 is basically a Saturn V with just a bigger 1st stage... Idk why I would expect it to burn out at the same time. 

Edited June 14 by GoldForest

[GoldForest]

Centrifuge Gravity Lab module, or CGL, is installed on Freedom.

Full album: Imgur: The magic of the Internet

Bonus images: Had to restart the mission because I accidentally hit space bar... and well... pictures speak for themselves. I didn't "launch" the second time, just cheated the module up. At first I thought about just leaving it and using Minotaur to deorbit the Command Module, but then I realized I forgot to put quantum struts on CGL. Yes. I use Q-Struts. It's to stop wobble.

[Pappystein]

4 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Centrifuge Gravity Lab module, or CGL, is installed on Freedom.

Full album: Imgur: The magic of the Internet

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm,   I use MOL Ferry tanks and RCS for my tugs... utilizing an Apollo SM with Aardvark GCU is a good idea....  

 

[CobaltWolf]

14 hours ago, Pappystein said:

Also, I should be clear... Wait and see is what I said.    That was reflecting other modders.   As I remember, the BDB team took the stance of "we will make mod for it when official mod support is a thing"   I know the latest parts revamps were actually in part made to support KSP2, and in part made to bring old assets up to a higher standard of visual appeal (and add new features.)

We never developed anything with KSP2 in mind tbh. We never got any info on any sorts of standards or other specifics like that. We just kept going, assuming that if nothing else the models would be good enough with some slight adjustments.

 

14 hours ago, Pappystein said:

1) What does the CW designate?
2) Completely Agree that F-1B is just F-1 with new manufacturing technique (really not even an F-1A with new manufacturing)
3) Since you are using the same combustion cycle but with a more RS-25 engine bell design (which is appropriate)  Why the particular color for the main bell?   I would think having it similar to RS-25 color would set it apart from say... NK-33 / RD-171 family looks.  I am seriously getting NK-33/43 thoughts when Looking at this.

12 hours ago, Zorg said:

The CW stands for channel wall (nozzle) hence the deliberate soviet styling inspiration. I like the way it looks tbh! It looks more F1 like still and we have an RS25 wannabe in the RS68 regen anyway

Yeah it's a channel wall style nozzle and... well, you found the pic I was using for reference. Personally I think it makes sense - the dark channel wall look is something I associate more with cryogenic engines, while the established IRL design language of high-performance kerolox engines is all russian.

 

 

Need to put something new here... uh... I started working on the pylon for X-15?

[Socowez]

On 6/8/2024 at 9:45 AM, Zorg said:

Variants on github now

We also have grey, white, and a slight variation on the IRL atlas colours on the RD180 engine mount. I put some accent colours in there for fun but its a separate switch to the metal ring so you can keep the shroud all white if you want.

BDB development is so cool but its like I'm watching on the sidelines with playing Realism Overhaul. I hope RP1 can incorporate more BDB parts in the future

Edit: just realized that was 3 pages ago but my point stands. You guys are doing an amazing job!

Edited June 14 by Socowez

[Zorg]

17 minutes ago, Socowez said:

BDB development is so cool but its like I'm watching on the sidelines with playing Realism Overhaul. I hope RP1 can incorporate more BDB parts in the future

Edit: just realized that was 3 pages ago but my point stands. You guys are doing an amazing job!

There is an RO user by the name of Skyphoenix (not sure if they’re in the forums) who is currently undertaking a massive effort to update BDB configs for RO (idk about RP1). Even a lot of the dev stuff are being integrated. Not sure if that work has been merged into RO yet and I would guess not for our dev stuff until it’s released anyway. 

[GoldForest]

57 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

We never developed anything with KSP2 in mind tbh. We never got any info on any sorts of standards or other specifics like that. We just kept going, assuming that if nothing else the models would be good enough with some slight adjustments.

 

Yeah it's a channel wall style nozzle and... well, you found the pic I was using for reference. Personally I think it makes sense - the dark channel wall look is something I associate more with cryogenic engines, while the established IRL design language of high-performance kerolox engines is all russian.

 

 

Need to put something new here... uh... I started working on the pylon for X-15?

Now we need 99% of the other parts of the B-52... or XB-70... 

Joking aside, do you plan on doing a, for lack of better word, "belly" pylon for the x-15 so we can do the xb-70 style launch where X-15 attaches to the top of the xb-70? Or make this pylon attachable to the belly of X-15?

[CobaltWolf]

1 minute ago, GoldForest said:

Now we need 99% of the other parts of the B-52... or XB-70... 

Joking aside, do you plan on doing a, for lack of better word, "belly" pylon for the x-15 so we can do the xb-70 style launch where X-15 attaches to the top of the xb-70? Or make this pylon attachable to the belly of X-15?

I didn't understand why people kept asking for a belly mount but that makes sense.

[GoldForest]

1 hour ago, Pappystein said:

Hmm,   I use MOL Ferry tanks and RCS for my tugs... utilizing an Apollo SM with Aardvark GCU is a good idea....  

 

I use Blk 2 SM, but I think ETS has blk 3/5 asrdvark tugs on their modules. 

I want the extra fuel and mono though. The RCS on the modules would work with Asrdvark's rcs from what I've read as well. Unless I misunderstood something.

4 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

I didn't understand why people kept asking for a belly mount but that makes sense.

Yeah, XB-70 is depicted with X-15 on its back on a spinal launcher. Like SR-71 with its drone.

Omg... this was so close to becoming reality apparently. Now, I know it's just the two side by side, but I would like to think they were doing it to get an idea of what modifications the xb-70 would need.

 

Edited June 14 by GoldForest

[DaveyJ576]

3 hours ago, GoldForest said:

I use Blk 2 SM, but I think ETS has blk 3/5 asrdvark tugs on their modules. 

I want the extra fuel and mono though. The RCS on the modules would work with Asrdvark's rcs from what I've read as well. Unless I misunderstood something.

Yeah, XB-70 is depicted with X-15 on its back on a spinal launcher. Like SR-71 with its drone.

Omg... this was so close to becoming reality apparently. Now, I know it's just the two side by side, but I would like to think they were doing it to get an idea of what modifications the xb-70 would need.

 

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. 

Edited June 14 by DaveyJ576
Added A-12 correction

[GoldForest]

1 hour ago, 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. 

Ah. Okay. Hmmm. How'd we get it down for the shuttle or was that just as "bumpy"?

[Entr8899]

@ZorgAre there any plans to add the MSD upper stage for the Atlas revamp? What even is that thing anyway? There's next to no info about it online, it just looks to me like a small Centaur, but solid fueled apparently. I'm not really sure...

[DaveyJ576]

12 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Ah. Okay. Hmmm. How'd we get it down for the shuttle or was that just as "bumpy"?

It is my understanding that the issues were related to speed. The very high speeds of the M-21/D-21 and the XB-70/X-15 greatly magnified the issue. The 747/shuttle combo was fairly low speed/low altitude and thus it was manageable. Remember that the shuttle had to be fitted with a tail cone for ferry flights, and on the ALT flights without a tail cone the 747 struggled with vibration and drag issues. 

[GoldForest]

23 minutes ago, Entr8899 said:

@ZorgAre there any plans to add the MSD upper stage for the Atlas revamp? What even is that thing anyway? There's next to no info about it online, it just looks to me like a small Centaur, but solid fueled apparently. I'm not really sure...

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? 

1 minute ago, DaveyJ576 said:

It is my understanding that the issues were related to speed. The very high speeds of the M-21/D-21 and the XB-70/X-15 greatly magnified the issue. The 747/shuttle combo was fairly low speed/low altitude and thus it was manageable. Remember that the shuttle had to be fitted with a tail cone for ferry flights, and on the ALT flights without a tail cone the 747 struggled with vibration and drag issues. 

Ah. Gotcha.

Edited June 14 by GoldForest

[Entr8899]

@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)?