[1.12.5] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.14.0 "металл" 30/Sep/2024)

[GoldForest]

1 hour ago, Pappystein said:

*Snip for size saving*

What you said about Centaur V can be said about Centaur G/G'/T.  
Heck, Centaur II and III can be said the same of as well. 
It's like Delta. Is the Delta IV really a Delta? 
There's two ways to look at this: Opinion based or "Go with what they say" Based. 
I'm more the latter group. If the people who make Delta IV call it a Delta, It's a Delta. They say that Centaur V IS a Centaur, then it's a Centaur. 
Now, I understand that fundamentally it's a changed rocket or rocket stage, but you're kind of arguing semantics at that point, aren't you? In the end, it doesn't really matter. It's their stage/rocket. They can reuse the name if they want. 

Also, is it actually Centaur V? Or is it Centaur F or Centaur H internally? 

[Pappystein]

8 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

What you said about Centaur V can be said about Centaur G/G'/T.  
Heck, Centaur II and III can be said the same of as well. 
It's like Delta. Is the Delta IV really a Delta? 
There's two ways to look at this: Opinion based or "Go with what they say" Based. 
I'm more the latter group. If the people who make Delta IV call it a Delta, It's a Delta. They say that Centaur V IS a Centaur, then it's a Centaur. 
Now, I understand that fundamentally it's a changed rocket or rocket stage, but you're kind of arguing semantics at that point, aren't you? In the end, it doesn't really matter. It's their stage/rocket. They can reuse the name if they want. 

Also, is it actually Centaur V? Or is it Centaur F or Centaur H internally? 

Centaur G/G'/T started out with the tooling from Centaur D.1A/T   It is the reason the D.1AR exists.   So no those are Centaurs.  Also their avionics are modifed D.1T avionics.
Centaur D.2 (II) and D.3 (III) start out on the tooling that the D.1AR uses but has a new aft section so as to allow Single and Dual Engine mounting.   Again those are Centaur. New all digital avionics so the top and bottom are new but the center, while stretched is basically the same.

The first all new is actually ACES (Centaur V)   As I said this is ACES stripped down, not a member of the Centaur family.

Re your last question.   It is ULA so who knows?   They, ULA has tried to get away from the old Convair/NASA Centaur Nomenclature.  Hence branding Centaur D.2 as the II and D.3 as the III.   Remember ULA took over Centaur Development AFTER Both the Atlas II and Atlas III had been "sketched out."   And Atlas III was going to have a longer version of the Atlas II's centaur (it would fly with both Centaur D.2 and Centaur D.3.)   Then ULA became a thing and they re-branded ALMOST everything.

EELV became Atlas V AND Delta IV.
SUS became both Agena2000 (it really isn't that) and Delta L <-- Delta IV Lite SUS was an "Improved Delta K"   Delta L is the next letter so I guessed
Centaur D.2 becomes Centaur II   Centaur D.3 becomes Centaur III

 

Edited July 1 by Pappystein

[dave1904]

1 hour ago, Pappystein said:

*I need to finish this Centaur article!*

Sure.   As I covered previously on my article on the Saturn C-2 and C-3 Rockets.   The S-V stage is ***NOT*** a Centaur... But it is still a Centaur.     Confusing?     

First off You have to remember Centaur D is the Final production of Centaur (and even the latest Centaur III for Atlas V is just a Centaur D.3)  

Saturn was to fly with Centaur C (NO DO NOT READ WIKIPEDIA OR ASTRONAUTICS...  THEY GET IT WRONG!!!)   The Centaur Series were named Centaur A and B (Test articles not meant for flight)  Centaur C (Saturn S-V)  Centaur D (Atlas and latter upgraded for Titan)  and Centaur E (Saturn S-V but with fixes solved for production Centaur D.)   When the First Centaur D launched on that Atlas and promptly Exploded due to heating... NASA took over the Centaur program from Convair (GD.)    NASA then utilizing their standard nomenclature at the time.   Started with letter test codes.   A Short version of these codes are what Wikipedia et-al are quoting, and not the actual stage names!      The Test flights were  Centaur D Flight A, Centaur D Flight B, Centaur D Flight C and Centaur D Flight D (not all were flown but you can see now where the confusion comes from!)

Centaur C and E:  Von Braun absolutely disliked Bossart and his "over-engineered" concept of the Balloon tank.    Thus Von Braun stipulated (and NASA caved) that any stage to fly on Saturn would be a Monocoque stage.    S-V is what would happen if you tripled the thickness of the skin on the Centaur Tanks.   The S-V stage is thus both a Centaur and Not a Centaur.   The tankage looks the same.  But you can open the hatch on the nose and the whole thing will not collapse under it's own mass.   So it *LOOKS* like a Centaur, Uses the same engines, avionics and interfaces as a Centaur... But isn't a Centaur.

Oh, Because of the stronger skin, the Boiloff issue would be *reduced.* when compared to Centaur D.1.   With it's SOFI covering I think Centaur D.3/III would have better boiloff performance

So the "Centaur Stages"

Centaur C.1 (Saturn prior to the First Centaur flight)    *EDIT*  <-- Would fly with the LR119 AKA the RL10B-3 engine to make up for the extra tank mass

Centaur D.1 (OG Atlas Only Centaur... the one that blew up on it's first two flights)
Centaur D.1A (Flight proven Centaur that replaced D.1 Above)
Centaur D.1T (Modified for Titan variant of Centaur D.1A without external insulation)
Centaur D.1AR (New production Centaur based on Shuttle(1) Centaur Due to D.1A tooling having been partially scrapped.  While tankage and insulation are SIMILAR to the D.1A they are not the same.) Flew on Atlas G
Centaur D.1R  Shuttle (1) Centaur, never built but designed in the 1970s.  Basically CEntaur D.1A without Hydrogen peroxide and different insulation pannels

Centaur D.2 (Known in press as Centaur II)
Centaur D.3 (Known in Press as Centaur III)

Centaur E.1 Final Saturn Centaur S-V, still with the LR119 aka RL10B-3 engines but with all the "Fixes" that the Centaur D.1A had still monocoque structure not balloon.

Shuttle Centaur  G  (Shortie Fat Centaur for Space shuttle)
Shuttle Centaur G' (Longer Fat Centaur for Space Shuttle, actually built but not flown)
Titan Centaur T   Shuttle Centaur G' with adjustments to launch on Titan IV

Centaur V  (Not a Centaur!)   ACES upper stage without all the Gee Wiz-Bang features meant for ACES.

***EDITED*** there are several Centaur stages that are mentioned in various texts that I skipped because they did not actually impact production and often were not actually designated.

EG Growth Centaur and Centaur JR both from the 1960 Atlas F ICBM paper I showed a Build guide for 3 pages back.
Note the 1960 Atlas F paper predates the First Centaur Flight and as such those "Hypothetical" Centaur Stages never went anywhere.
Also yes ULA may call it Centaur V but really it has nothing in common with Centaur except some of the software/avionics from the D.3  and the Engines are a form of RL10   Then again... Atlas V could have the same thing said

As I posted this I realized something... the Centaur D series was dead in 1984 prior to Challenger.  The D.1AR is actually made using Centaur G/T tooling! so the D.1R may just be a ghost echo (IE it had nothing directly impact wise to do with the D.1AR, it was a grandfather to not a father of.)



 

AH, so S-V is a centaur but not a centaur haha. Makes sense. I wonder how much of a performance hit they would have taken with a monocoque. 

17 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

It's like Delta. Is the Delta IV really a Delta? 

If Delta IV is Delta then SLS is Delta V

[GoldForest]

9 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

AH, so S-V is a centaur but not a centaur haha. Makes sense. I wonder how much of a performance hit they would have taken with a monocoque. 

If Delta IV is Delta then SLS is Delta V

3 times the wall thickness, 3 times the weight, roughly. So, yeah, big hit to delta-V. (That's just the tank though, so overall weight won't change very much. A few hundred KG at min I would think)

Centaur is so efficient because it's so light weight. Each KG added is less delta-V. It's why Centaur kind of outperforms DCSS, IMO. Delta DCSS is kind of heavy compared to Centaur. Yes, it's bigger, but still. If we size of Centaur, it would probably still outperform DCSS.

There's a whole argument that Delta isn't the Rocket, it's the upper stage, so yes by the argument, SLS would be Delta V. 

Edited July 1 by GoldForest

[CobaltWolf]

4 hours ago, Alpha512 said:

But have you added true UA1206s tho? (with 6 segments, not 5.5)

4 hours ago, GoldForest said:

It would have to be modeled. Cobalt or Zorg would have to do it. I don't see it happening unless an actual Titan Update is done. 

Rodger is just cleaning up the part list really. Combining many parts into one part then giving that one-part part-switching capabilities to bring the parts in line with the current standard of practice.

1 hour ago, Pappystein said:

CobaltWolf's Stream yesterday was about Titan update *oh and Fixing IUS and X-15 dev* (really just kitbashing existing parts to the current BDB standards.)  Which is what Roger was talking about in the above post.
It is 100% up to @CobaltWolf if he feels it is important to make the Saturn proposed UA1206 with its full 6 segments.    I have always designated this as UA-1206F (F for the full segment, but that is 100% my designation and my headcanon.)

I could look into the UA1206. We're not really trying to make new stuff, just rekerjigger the parts a bit to improve QoL for the part set.

[Friznit]

11 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

AH, so S-V is a centaur but not a centaur haha. Makes sense. I wonder how much of a performance hit they would have taken with a monocoque. 

If Delta IV is Delta then SLS is Delta V

Thor VI

[dave1904]

8 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

3 times the wall thickness, 3 times the weight, roughly. So, yeah, big hit to delta-V.

There's a whole argument that Delta isn't the Rocket, it's the upper stage, so yes by the argument, SLS would be Delta V. 

That makes me wonder if the S-V would have any purpose whatsoever. Isn't the high energy of centaur the only reason it exists. 

Centaur-V is still more centaur than most other rocket stages that carry the names of their successors. It is after all an evolution unlike Delta-IV or Atlas-III that are fundamentally different rockets. 

[GoldForest]

14 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

That makes me wonder if the S-V would have any purpose whatsoever. Isn't the high energy of centaur the only reason it exists. 

Centaur-V is still more centaur than most other rocket stages that carry the names of their successors. It is after all an evolution unlike Delta-IV or Atlas-III that are fundamentally different rockets. 

IRL? Rigidity. Able to handle heavier payloads without crushing under the weight. In Atlas V, at least the 5-meter fairing version, the weight of the payload is supported by the fairings iirc. So, they're able to put heavier loads on top of Centaur because Centaur isn't taking the full brunt of the weight. At least until fairing jettison, but at that point, they are near weightless. 

In KSP, it would just be for realism. Because Centaur S-V would be heavier. 

Edited July 1 by GoldForest

[Pappystein]

37 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

3 times the wall thickness, 3 times the weight, roughly. So, yeah, big hit to delta-V. (That's just the tank though, so overall weight won't change very much. A few hundred KG at min I would think)

Centaur is so efficient because it's so light weight. Each KG added is less delta-V. It's why Centaur kind of outperforms DCSS, IMO. Delta DCSS is kind of heavy compared to Centaur. Yes, it's bigger, but still. If we size of Centaur, it would probably still outperform DCSS.

There's a whole argument that Delta isn't the Rocket, it's the upper stage, so yes by the argument, SLS would be Delta V. 

 

26 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

That makes me wonder if the S-V would have any purpose whatsoever. Isn't the high energy of centaur the only reason it exists. 

Centaur-V is still more centaur than most other rocket stages that carry the names of their successors. It is after all an evolution unlike Delta-IV or Atlas-III that are fundamentally different rockets. 

 

23 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

IRL? Rigidity. Able to handle heavier payloads without crushing under the weight. In Atlas V, at least the 5-meter fairing version, the weight of the payload is supported by the fairings iirc. So, they're able to put heavier loads on top of Centaur because Centaur isn't taking the full brunt of the weight. At least until fairing jettison, but at that point, they are near weightless. 

In KSP, it would just be for realism. Because Centaur S-V would be heavier. 

So S-V (both the Centaur C and the Centaur E versions) were Monocoque and yes heavier than similarly sized Centaur D.1.  However they also had more powerful engines.  The never actually ordered LR119 into production due to *reasons* but it the different parts were prototyped.  Reasons being 2 fold.  A) Centaur First test flight explosion.  B) cutting costs and complexity from Saturn Program.    the LR119 was to power the S-IV stage with 4 engines (what flew had 6 LR115s) and the S-V stage with 2 engines (Never flew.)


Remember Centaur Flies with LR115.   Or in Pratt&Whitney language:  RL10-A-3
The LR119 in Pratt&Whitney language is RL10-B-3 (yes the B-3 exists long before the B-2!)

The RL10-A-3 (AKA USAF Designation LR115-PW-) is a 15,000 ft/lb Rocket engine
The RL10-B-3 (AKA USAF Designation LR119-PW-) is a 20,000 ft/lb Rocket engine.   So likely the mass vs thrust is equalized and you end up with just slightly lower ISP as the major difference (same fuel, higher fuel consumption)

There is a patch to give you the -B-3 engine in the Pafftek folder of BDB Extras!

YES we have documented sources to this effect
NO neither Astronautix nor Wikipedia have any mention of the LR119 or the RL10-B-3.  Because *I think* since Astronautix didn't cover it it doesn't exist.

 

Edited July 1 by Pappystein

[Blufor878]

5 hours ago, Rodger said:

No, that's odd. That switch doesn't reference a module.

Speaking of the UA120, something else that's going to be in 1.14 is a slight update of the titan parts: merging similar engines and tanks into single parts with part switches to cut down on part count, as well as changing to a physical interstage part system like more recent BDB parts instead of the stockalike autoshroud system.

For example, all the UA120 solid boosters have already been merged (individual parts have been soft depreciated)

And the new interstage decoupler part, made up of the vented decoupler and a selection of the autoshrouds

Will the new titan parts (boosters included) still support tweakscale? Also wanted to ask if these updates include new craft files? I imagine the existing craft files that currently come with BDB will be depreciated by the time this stuff comes out.

[Taco Salad]

Teaser time
 

[GoldForest]

4 minutes ago, Taco Salad said:

Teaser time
 

Reminds me of my Ares I styled Saturn, which was basically the same thing, except used the giant SRB. And it didn't have side boosters. 

[Pappystein]

9 minutes ago, Taco Salad said:

Teaser time
 

Given the 396" section is upside down, is this a Saturn II lab?

Also what engines did you use for your Clusters!?   All E-1s I hope! (or better!)

 

@harveylates There is a lot of picture noise to make it "Authentic" but that looks like the Pegasus/S-V Boilerplate you were asking about yesterday.

Edited July 1 by Pappystein

[Neil Kerman]

@Friznit Unsure where to post my question but this thread seems like a decent place. I was looking through the manual you'd made (awesome work by the way, I use it a lot and love all of your other wikis/manuals), specifically under the area for satellites.  I really love the Scansat and Near Future Exploration inspired satellites you showcase there and was wondering if you'd ever posted the craft files for those satellites anywhere or knew where I could find them.

[Taco Salad]

12 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

Given the 396" section is upside down, is this a Saturn II lab?

Also what engines did you use for your Clusters!?   All E-1s I hope! (or better!)

 

@harveylates There is a lot of picture noise to make it "Authentic" but that looks like the Pegasus/S-V Boilerplate you were asking about yesterday.

NOPE, 24 H-1's, NO upgrades. Having all your engines lighting be a total crapshoot keeps things interesting.

[Friznit]

9 minutes ago, Neil Kerman said:

@Friznit Unsure where to post my question but this thread seems like a decent place. I was looking through the manual you'd made (awesome work by the way, I use it a lot and love all of your other wikis/manuals), specifically under the area for satellites.  I really love the Scansat and Near Future Exploration inspired satellites you showcase there and was wondering if you'd ever posted the craft files for those satellites anywhere or knew where I could find them.

Sadly I don't think I've kept them.  I was trying to recreate them myself in my latest game too.  I'll have a root around in some archives when I'm  next at my PC though.

 

@Blufor878 we typically check & redo all the craft files just before release, though I'm personally in favour of only doing a few of the "main" builds now that many variants are just the same parts with different B9 switches.

[Pappystein]

33 minutes ago, Friznit said:

Sadly I don't think I've kept them.  I was trying to recreate them myself in my latest game too.  I'll have a root around in some archives when I'm  next at my PC though.

 

@Blufor878 we typically check & redo all the craft files just before release, though I'm personally in favour of only doing a few of the "main" builds now that many variants are just the same parts with different B9 switches.

I agree Frizinit,    BDB has gotten to big to do ALL the craft files    It isn't about lazyness either.  It is about... How do you find Titan 34D in a list of Titans that is 45 entries long.   Pretty quickly the layperson's eyes bleed (heck I am a huge nerd for this stuff and MINE do!)

[Blufor878]

1 hour ago, Friznit said:

Sadly I don't think I've kept them.  I was trying to recreate them myself in my latest game too.  I'll have a root around in some archives when I'm  next at my PC though.

 

@Blufor878 we typically check & redo all the craft files just before release, though I'm personally in favour of only doing a few of the "main" builds now that many variants are just the same parts with different B9 switches.

 

56 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

I agree Frizinit,    BDB has gotten to big to do ALL the craft files    It isn't about lazyness either.  It is about... How do you find Titan 34D in a list of Titans that is 45 entries long.   Pretty quickly the layperson's eyes bleed (heck I am a huge nerd for this stuff and MINE do!)

That makes perfect sense. I (dare I say we) appreciate the effort put into this mod either way. Mostly I've been combing through my Titan/Atlas-heavy saves, trying to brace them for the next update. That's why I'm asking.

[Rodger]

I have updated craft files to replace ones with hard deprecated parts, so none of them should be unloadable, and the titan soft-deprecations will still have full textures as we’re still using the same assets. But yeah will probably do a pass of the craft files for soft deprecated parts before release too.

[Entr8899]

Why were the Viking antenna and Apollo crew module lab thing depreciated?

[NuclearAlchemist]

9 hours ago, Taco Salad said:

Teaser time
 

Oh dear... hope that's stable when it flies.

[Taco Salad]

2 hours ago, NuclearAlchemist said:

Oh dear... hope that's stable when it flies.

Oh it's stable


Oh yeah baby it's time.

40% of the time spent making the lander, 40% spent making it a BIT more stable, 19% making it STOP exploding on launch and 1% spent making the rest of it.
Sadly I had to sacrifice 3/4 of the surface sampling probes due to part count but I DID IT, It's GONNA work.

[Rodger]

3 hours ago, Entr8899 said:

Why were the Viking antenna and Apollo crew module lab thing depreciated?

I don't think either of those have been depreciated? Some very old antennas which had been hidden for a while were removed, but no Apollo crew modules have gone.

[Pappystein]

1 hour ago, Taco Salad said:

Oh it's stable


Oh yeah baby it's time.

40% of the time spent making the lander, 40% spent making it a BIT more stable, 19% making it STOP exploding on launch and 1% spent making the rest of it.
Sadly I had to sacrifice 3/4 of the surface sampling probes due to part count but I DID IT, It's GONNA work.

Ill admit my mistake, you caught me out.  Nuclear Shuttle was not even on my mind.   (isn't it too short tho!?)   Good show  And good luck with your Martian landing (assuming you are headded to Duna)

 

[Birdman31]

Just a question, are you guys planning to add any of the re-entry vehicles Atlas missiles used? like the one for the Titan?