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

[GoldForest]

Jupiter Agena launching Imp A

Full album: Imgur: The magic of the Internet

[GoldForest]

Decided to do a Vulcain style Jupiter. 

Full album: Imgur: The magic of the Internet

[Zorg]

Added a few new parts

OV1 1.25m fairing base

OV1 1.25m SAF fairing (available on some of the other 1.25m fairing bases too)

1.25m structural adapter - the black part below the fairing. Can be optionally used as an interstage too and the white variant for SGS is also available. The SGS fairing is a longer version of the MSD one and that fairing will be made soon.

new dual and triple OV1 decoupler

All the OV1 parts have been rescaled smaller

The propulsion kit now has posigrade RCS

[DaveyJ576]

@Zorg, the new OV parts are very well done. Thank you and to all of the dev team for putting in the time to make them. I am in the process of loading a clean KSP build, so I haven't had time to fly it yet, but I have been looking forward to it for some time.

The Jupiter kitbashes are a very interesting path not taken. The Jupiter was the proverbial "red-headed step child" of U.S. rocketry. An Army program, there wasn't top level enthusiasm for it as the Army didn't see itself in the IRBM/ICBM game. They were more interested in local battlefield weapons. But since von Braun and his team were employed by the Army they let the project go forward. It was very nearly canceled in 1957, but Sputnik laid to rest any ideas of cancelling any missile program.

It was pushed rapidly forward, ostensibly as an Army developed missile for use by the Navy as a Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile. However, basing the large Jupiter within the confines of a submarine hull proved to be a vexing problem for the Navy, along with all of the dangers of storing liquid rocket fuel aboard a submarine. If it had been put into service this way, the submarine would only have carried three missiles, and the boat would have to surface, raise the missile up out of the hull on an elevator platform, fuel it, then launch. It was an lengthy process that exposed the boat to counterattack. The design of a Jupiter firing USN submarine would have been broadly similar to the Soviet Hotel-class submarine (i.e. the K-19 "Widowmaker" from the Harrison Ford movie).

Missile technology was rapidly improving and warhead sizes were getting dramatically smaller so the Navy abandoned this Rube Goldberg setup in favor of the much smaller but equally capable Polaris solid-fuel missile. It was absolutely the right decision, but it left the Jupiter without a ride.

Decisions within the DoD pulled the IRBM/ICBM mission away from the Army and placed it within the Air Force and Navy. The Air Force reluctantly adopted the Jupiter, but again there was little enthusiasm for it as they already had their own program, Thor. The Jupiter was actually placed in service as an operational IRBM based in Turkey and aimed squarely at the USSR. However, it was pulled from service as a means of standing down from the Cuban Missile Crisis and never saw any further military service.

It was reconfigured as a space launch vehicle as the Juno II, with a 2nd and 3rd stage consisting of clusters of Sergeant solid motors. It could even be equipped with a fourth stage of a single Sergeant when necessary (all available in BDB). Its record was quite mixed, with only four complete successes out of 10 flights. One flight, AM-16/Explorer S-1 ended at T+5 seconds in one of the most spectacular Kerbal-like crashes in U.S. rocketry history.

With Thor constantly looking over its shoulder, any further moves to modify Jupiter with better upper stages (i.e. Able/Delta or Agena) essentially ended at the study stage and were never seriously considered. However, in some alternate universe, if Thor had been unsuccessful, it is quite possible that Jupiter Able or Jupiter Agena would have flown, and quite often at that.

Edited August 3 by DaveyJ576

[Pappystein]

14 hours ago, Rodger said:

I've added the viking and mariner 71 propulsion systems to the patch.

Other recent dev updates include adding missing engine bell glows to GEM motors, and merging the 60/60XL. Symmetry mode switches for mariner and viking orbiter probe cores (for 4x solar panel placement. use 'Remove From Symmetry' PAW button to replace a single panel with antenna variants) as well as node rotations for the mariner solar panels so they auto-align better. Added nukes to the upper stage thrust buff optional patch, without adjusting their dry mass so they get a big boost in usability. Apollo RCS blocks are merged down into 4 separate parts instead of 14, one part per number of thrust directions (1x, 2x, 3x, 4x), and the tiny probe RCS blocks are merged into one part (with 10 subtypes lol).

I think it is safe to say we all appreciate this hard work!

6 hours ago, GoldForest said:

 

 

Ahh,  Narwhalling the Mun eh?

Interesting rocket concept.   Curiosity q.  Are you using one of the various KJR or just built in auto-strut?

[GoldForest]

5 hours ago, DaveyJ576 said:

@Zorg, the new OV parts are very well done. Thank you and to all of the dev team for putting in the time to make them. I am in the process of loading a clean KSP build, so I haven't had time to fly it yet, but I have been looking forward to it for some time.

The Jupiter kitbashes are a very interesting path not taken. The Jupiter was the proverbial "red-headed step child" of U.S. rocketry. An Army program, there wasn't top level enthusiasm for it as the Army didn't see itself in the IRBM/ICBM game. They were more interested in local battlefield weapons. But since von Braun and his team were employed by the Army they let the project go forward. It was very nearly canceled in 1957, but Sputnik laid to rest any ideas of cancelling any missile program.

It was pushed rapidly forward, ostensibly as an Army developed missile for use by the Navy as a Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile. However, basing the large Jupiter within the confines of a submarine hull proved to be a vexing problem for the Navy, along with all of the dangers of storing liquid rocket fuel aboard a submarine. If it had been put into service this way, the submarine would only have carried three missiles, and the boat would have to surface, raise the missile up out of the hull on an elevator platform, fuel it, then launch. It was an lengthy process that exposed the boat to counterattack. The design of a Jupiter firing USN submarine would have been broadly similar to the Soviet Hotel-class submarine (i.e. the K-19 "Widowmaker" from the Harrison Ford movie).

Missile technology was rapidly improving and warhead sizes were getting dramatically smaller so the Navy abandoned this Rube Goldberg setup in favor of the much smaller but equally capable Polaris solid-fuel missile. It was absolutely the right decision, but it left the Jupiter without a ride.

Decisions within the DoD pulled the IRBM/ICBM mission away from the Army and placed it within the Air Force and Navy. The Air Force reluctantly adopted the Jupiter, but again there was little enthusiasm for it as they already had their own program, Thor. The Jupiter was actually placed in service as an operational IRBM based in Turkey and aimed squarely at the USSR. However, it was pulled from service as a means of standing down from the Cuban Missile Crisis and never saw any further military service.

It was reconfigured as a space launch vehicle as the Juno II, with a 2nd and 3rd stage consisting of clusters of Sergeant solid motors. It could even be equipped with a fourth stage of a single Sergeant when necessary (all available in BDB). Its record was quite mixed, with only four complete successes out of 10 flights. One flight, AM-16/Explorer S-1 ended at T+5 seconds in one of the most spectacular Kerbal-like crashes in U.S. rocketry history.

With Thor constantly looking over its shoulder, any further moves to modify Jupiter with better upper stages (i.e. Able/Delta or Agena) essentially ended at the study stage and were never seriously considered. However, in some alternate universe, if Thor had been unsuccessful, it is quite possible that Jupiter Able or Jupiter Agena would have flown, and quite often at that.

To be fair, Thor's team rapidly expanded upon it. Stretched tanks, SRB boosters, etc. Thor's slightly smaller size also probably played a role. They could get more performance out of LR79 engine with Thor than Jupiter due to Jupiter being a tad bit wider than Thor, almost .3 meters wider, which doesn't sound like a lot, but that adds a lot of volume to the tankage. Juno IV was promising until Atlas showed up. Juno V technically was created. Saturn I is just a renamed Juno V, due to Von Braun wanting Juno V to be in differentiated from Jupiter/Juno II. Hmmm. If the Juno name was kept, what would Saturn V be as a Juno? Juno VI? 

Also, I found these images of Juno V considerations. It's interesting to see that they kept the 8-engine layout with all the designs. I'm guessing the F-1 wasn't even thought of at the time of Juno V's conceptualization? IDK why they didn't go with one of the two monolithic tank designs. Yes, I know why, I just don't understand why. Like, yes, you have the tooling to make the Thor and Redstone tanks, but wouldn't it cost more to go with a multi-tank design, not to mention heavier stage overall, than a monolithic tank? Sorry, tangent. Ignore everything past the IDK.  

Also, the clustered second tank is so Kerbal.

5 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

I think it is safe to say we all appreciate this hard work!

Ahh,  Narwhalling the Mun eh?

Interesting rocket concept.   Curiosity q.  Are you using one of the various KJR or just built in auto-strut?

KJR and auto-struts. 

And if you think the "Narhal" picture is funny, you should see the payload picture. 

Edited August 3 by GoldForest

[Pappystein]

5 hours ago, DaveyJ576 said:

[Jupiter] It was pushed rapidly forward, ostensibly as an Army developed missile for use by the Navy as a Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile. However, basing the large Jupiter within the confines of a submarine hull proved to be a vexing problem for the Navy, along with all of the dangers of storing liquid rocket fuel aboard a submarine. If it had been put into service this way, the submarine would only have carried three missiles, and the boat would have to surface, raise the missile up out of the hull on an elevator platform, fuel it, then launch. It was an lengthy process that exposed the boat to counterattack. The design of a Jupiter firing USN submarine would have been broadly similar to the Soviet Hotel-class submarine (i.e. the K-19 "Widowmaker" from the Harrison Ford movie).

 

Exactly correct DaveyJ576.    But worse, it was also supposed to be on the USS Kentucky and the USS Long Beach (and her never built sister ships!)

USS Kentucky,  the unfinished "2nd Flight" Iowa class BB.    She was still extant and was finished up to the main deck, sans the very tip of her bow (which had just been cut off, and a new bow was in manufacturing at this time)
 

Unfortunately most websites focused on the history of the Jupiter program do not mention the surface ship.   I believe that is because;

•  Kentucky would have been a one-off no matter what,  and
• Because most people do not associate Missiles, with Battleships, even today with all the video of Tomahawks being launched in support of Desert Storm in 1991.  
• The design for USS Long Beach was still very early in it's design cycle.

The above is an early drawing of Long Beach right after removal of Jupiter from the design but before Polaris (the area between the two structures is where Jupiter was to go, it shows a Triton (canceled) or Regulus I in this location.)

Likewise, early on, the USS Long Beach (CGN-9) was to carry 2 Jupiter IRBM.  

With push-back over the "Land-lubber" derrick system for Jupiter (basically giant fixed crane booms would hold the missile at all times... allowing them to SWAY in any sort of sea.   Missiles careening into things was a serious concern for the non BuShips (Bureau of Ships, the people who DESIGNED ships and refits,) ship commanders.  And the Sub forces screaming about how unsafe liquid propellant was....   Jupiter got canceled.   FWIW the US Navy being involved with Jupiter was forced by Congress   (big surprise.)

Wayne Scarpaci has some good drawings of this in his Feb 2013 book "US Battleship Conversion Projects, 1942-1965"   Which covers every proposed battleship upgrade for the US Fleet until the USS New Jersey was pulled out of the mothball fleet for service in Vietnam.  In the book he actually goes into more than a basic detail of the decision process.    The USS Kentucky Drawing for Jupiter looks more akin to a self loading bulk ISC (international Shipping Container) carrier than a Battleship. Closer to ships like a heavily derrick equipped Evergiven or MV Dali (only mentioned as both are now kinda infamous.)    Derricks everywhere, a huge swath of flat deck space with a small central superstructure in the middle of it all.

It appears to still be available easily via the Used-book markets.

 

Part of Kentucky still exists... the first ~65 ft of Bow on the USS Wisconsin is ACTUALLY the USS Kentucky.     Last I heard there was a line painted on the main deck by the bow marked BB-64 (arrow pointing at the stern of the ship)  and BB-66  (Arrow pointing to the tip of the Bow.)    I do not know if this line is still on her today.   Apparently if you are on the port (left) side of the ship at that line you can actually see a bit of a kink where the hull plates didn't quite line up. (Note this is 2nd hand information and I am uncertain if the visible kink or painted lines are more or less "fish tales" I have never tread on the USS Wisconsin's decks)

 

 

[Pappystein]

36 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

To be fair, Thor's team rapidly expanded upon it. Stretched tanks, SRB boosters, etc. Thor's slightly smaller size also probably played a role. They could get more performance out of LR79 engine with Thor than Jupiter due to Jupiter being a tad bit wider than Thor, almost .3 meters wider, which doesn't sound like a lot, but that adds a lot of volume to the tankage. Juno IV was promising until Atlas showed up. Juno V technically was created. Saturn I is just a renamed Juno V, due to Von Braun wanting Juno V to be in differentiated from Jupiter/Juno II. Hmmm. If the Juno name was kept, what would Saturn V be as a Juno? Juno VI? 

Also, I found these images of Juno V considerations. It's interesting to see that they kept the 8-engine layout with all the designs. I'm guessing the F-1 wasn't even thought of at the time of Juno V's conceptualization? IDK why they didn't go with one of the two monolithic tank designs. Yes, I know why, I just don't understand why. Like, yes, you have the tooling to make the Thor and Redstone tanks, but wouldn't it cost more to go with a multi-tank design, not to mention heavier stage overall, than a monolithic tank? Sorry, tangent. Ignore everything past the IDK.  

Also, the clustered second tank is so Kerbal.

 

 

 

Love the Payload photo!  But two things here.   Juno V is Saturn C-2 not C-1...   Also Saturn S-III my beloved and oft ignored stage!  (the twin engined 2nd stage cluster!) 

 

The details for those who want them in the spoiler!
 

Spoiler

The drawing above is from late 1958 to BEFORE the Silverstein hearings.  This is when it was still an ARPA/DARPA and US Army Project.   3rd stage there would evolve into the S-IV stage we are all aware of.

 

• S-IV 220(?) with 1x J-2 engine.  <-- Uncertain about diameter here!
• S-IV 220 with 4 XLR-115 AKA RL10A-1 engines
• S-IV 240" with 4 XLR-119 RL10B-3 engines
• S-IV 240" with 6x LR-115 aka RL10A-3S engines.

 

Why all these permutations?   Simple.   Rocketdyne didn't know what it was doing with Hydrolox engines and were quickly falling behind schedule with all their associated engine products for this program.   They even had to contract with Pratt and Whitney, manufacture of the RL10, to gain knowledge on how to design the fuel/LOX injectors to work for even combustion.

 

Likewise S-III went through several evolution.  

• S-III 240" Cluster (as pictured) 2x J-2 engines
• S-III monohull 220"  <-- too small to fit 2x J-2 engines under so re-designed into
• S-III Monohull 260"  <--  What we often call the ETS S-IVC or ES-IVC  Its tank capacity is basically the same as the as flow S-IVB but 2x J-2 engines and no Guidance computer

When J-2 fell behind schedule and there were concerns about lower than expected thrust...    S-III was quickly replaced by a new stage   S-II-260.   Which is as designated a 260 inch diameter version of the North American Aviation S-II stage (North American was to make both the S-II and S-III stages at various points)   The 260" S-II has 4 J-2 engines and is about 133 to 150% longer than the S-III stage (more fuel)

 

 

[GoldForest]

My take on the Juno V featured above.

Full album: Imgur: The magic of the Internet

Thirty second burn time... that's bad. lol

But it still manages to get into orbit somehow... 

[Pappystein]

17 hours ago, GoldForest said:

My take on the Juno V featured above.

 

 

 

What part did you utilize to tie those Delta tanks together in such a Cluster?   Or are they just Surface attached?  I am asking for....   "Reasons"

INT-16 noises

 

[GoldForest]

54 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

What part did you utilize to tie those Delta tanks together in such a Cluster?   Or are they just Surface attached?  I am asking for....   "Reasons"

INT-16 noises

 

3.75m multi engine plate with a single Juno IV second stage, not Delta lol, attached to it, and then 8 Juno IV second stages surface attached, iirc, to the center Juno tank. S-IV engine mount in x4 mode with only 2 nodes populated. 

Edited August 4 by GoldForest

[Pappystein]

First testflight is underway

Note the Inline UA1205 has the TVC tanks.  To make this correctly a NON TVC version of the UA1205 without the tanks would be needed.  There is a lot of clipping going on between the UA-1205s.   I am launching this in a 4 +1 flight mode.   It flew OK (I turned Center engine TVC off)

Still in flight more photos to come

...  from a second flight  (Hears Scott Manley "Check your staging")

Built with S-IV standard Inter-stage and a central Inline UA-1205,  4x BDB Medium Decouplers ( for their thickness) and 4 Radial UA-1205s with non SRM nosecones attached.

BDB Medium Decoupler was disabled (the outer ring of SRMs stayed with the rocket

 

Edited August 4 by Pappystein

[GoldForest]

1 hour ago, Pappystein said:

First testflight is underway

Note the Inline UA1205 has the TVC tanks.  To make this correctly a NON TVC version of the UA1205 without the tanks would be needed.  There is a lot of clipping going on between the UA-1205s.   I am launching this in a 4 +1 flight mode.   It flew OK (I turned Center engine TVC off)

Still in flight more photos to come

...  from a second flight  (Hears Scott Manley "Check your staging")

Built with S-IV standard Inter-stage and a central Inline UA-1205,  4x BDB Medium Decouplers ( for their thickness) and 4 Radial UA-1205s with non SRM nosecones attached.

BDB Medium Decoupler was disabled (the outer ring of SRMs stayed with the rocket

 

I'm guessing they would take the TVC tank and shove it into the Saturn I interstage and run pipes down the length of the UA booster for the Saturn INTs? 

[Pappystein]

3 hours ago, GoldForest said:

I'm guessing they would take the TVC tank and shove it into the Saturn I interstage and run pipes down the length of the UA booster for the Saturn INTs? 

Every drawing I have seen of this shows the TVC tanks in their same place... but you can never see the inner "ring."   Also most of the drawings predate the final fit/form of the UA120 SRM so... they are a bit questionable.

Given the segmented nature of the SRM, and the fact that the LOCK-Roll (latter named FLEX-Roll when Thiokol licensed it from Lockheed space and Missile) was not on these SRMs is probably one of many reasons why no one ever attempted this.  Among many MANY other reasons!

  For those that haven't seen my document on the INT series (My archive of documents is linked in my signature below!) There was supposed to be 5,6,7,and 8 120" SRMs used as a first stage for Saturn IB.   With the parts we have 5 is the upper limit I was able to fit without major clipping.  

[DaveyJ576]

@CobaltWolf, do you have any plans that you can reveal to continue this discourse if the forums finally implode? I really enjoy the information and game tips to be found here and it would be a real shame to lose it. 

[GoldForest]

Mini Ares I isn't real, it can't hurt you. Mini Ares I. 

(Just a fun little launcher)

Full album: Imgur: The magic of the Internet

 

[AmateurAstronaut1969]

Titan IV with LRBs - One of the considered alternatives to SRMU development

Each booster is powered by 5 LR-87's, meaning the full stack has 15 engines in total, 12 being LR-87s

I love this engine section so much!

Edited August 5 by AmateurAstronaut1969

[GoldForest]

Inb4 Cobalt gets 50 pings asking for Titan LRBs to be added. One of those ping hypothetically being from me...

11.5 ft? That's about 3.5 meters (Rounded down from 3.5052) or in KSP scale, 2.1875 meters. Which is actually one of the niche half size scales. 

Cobalt, if you actually make this, please use 2.1875. You already use the other niche sizes like 0.9375 and 1.5. 

Edited August 5 by GoldForest

[BSS_Snag]

1 minute ago, GoldForest said:

Inb4 Cobalt gets 50 pings asking for Titan LRBs to be added. 

Titan LRBs when?

Like this?

[Zorg]

Sneak peak

Spoiler

 

[AmateurAstronaut1969]

3 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Inb4 Cobalt gets 50 pings asking for Titan LRBs to be added. One of those ping hypothetically being from me...

11.5 ft? That's about 3.5 meters (Rounded down from 3.5052) or in KSP scale, 2.1875 meters. Which is actually one of the niche half size scales. 

Cobalt, if you actually make this, please use 2.1875. You already use the other niche sizes like 0.9375 and 1.5. 

Yeah lol, they're slightly bigger than Titan itself

I don't think parts for it are needed, I kitbahsed it with the new atlas tanks there + other parts, and it's really just this one niche diagram, I'm struggling to find it anywhere else

[Pappystein]

33 minutes ago, AmateurAstronaut1969 said:

Yeah lol, they're slightly bigger than Titan itself

I don't think parts for it are needed, I kitbahsed it with the new atlas tanks there + other parts, and it's really just this one niche diagram, I'm struggling to find it anywhere else

I had some bad luck with it recently, but Tweakscale the LDC cores down might be a viable option?

*I had Explorer I  Auto-size to 3.125m diameter... from 0.125m  Every probe was doing something like this when I had Tweakscale installed.

14 hours ago, DaveyJ576 said:

@CobaltWolf, do you have any plans that you can reveal to continue this discourse if the forums finally implode? I really enjoy the information and game tips to be found here and it would be a real shame to lose it. 

Cobalt has already said to pay attention to his X account for any updates should the forums implode.

PERSONAL OPINION.  Most of what we are experiencing is people panicking and trying to COPY the entire forum for their own archives.   To my mind this is a **REALLY BAD IDEA**  and I am a flight history archivist by hobby!

 

Now that it has been a while we are seeing LESS bad gateway disconnects then we were in the days after everyone realized that Take Two was "altering" the trajectory of this game eccosphere.    I attribute that to less people trying to archive.    But hey, it wouldn't be the first time today I was wrong if I am!

[Pappystein]

3 hours ago, Zorg said:

Sneak peak

  Hide contents

 

Its Glorious!

[CobaltWolf]

14 hours ago, DaveyJ576 said:

@CobaltWolf, do you have any plans that you can reveal to continue this discourse if the forums finally implode? I really enjoy the information and game tips to be found here and it would be a real shame to lose it.

31 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

Cobalt has already said to pay attention to his Twitter account for any updates should the forums implode.

Definitely still a concern of mine, but I am not in a position to create a new BDB forum or anything like that.

Pappy is right, in that if the forums ever do finally go down for good, I'd hopefully have a new pinned post on my Twitter that directs people to a new place for BDB discussion.

I, of course, could make a BDB Discord server. I could have done that a long time ago and chose not to. Personally, I don't like the siloing that comes from moving forum-based discussions on to Discord. I'd rather discussion of BDB stay on an open webpage that can be trawled by search engines, etc.

My other thought on making a BDB Discord is that it's a solution for BDB, but not for preserving the modded KSP community as a whole.

 

 

In other news, my plan to play Battletech until I burn out appears to be working. Or at least, I'm starting to be able to think about BDB again.

Nothing much to share at the moment, I think my remaining priorities for this update have been discussed / are clear. Finish X-15, finish the Titan rekerjiggering, finish Mariner. I did take the time to finally implement proper endcap textures for the X-15.

 

I also started messing with a stack adapter for X-15, because I am a kind and generous ruler.

 

Someone had asked if I could make it more in this general shape, I'm not sure it looks the best. These adapters also wouldn't work for the XLR-11 or SERJ engine variants, so that stinks.

[Pappystein]

3 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

I, of course, could make a BDB Discord server. I could have done that a long time ago and chose not to. Personally, I don't like the siloing that comes from moving forum-based discussions on to Discord. I'd rather discussion of BDB stay on an open webpage that can be trawled by search engines, etc.

My other thought on making a BDB Discord is that it's a solution for BDB, but not for preserving the modded KSP community as a whole.

1) sorry everyone for getting Cobalt Hooked on BTA3062   And no he isn't using my Sub-mod for that mod
2) I agree, in the case of Battletech Advanced 3062 mod, the Discord is hard to keep up with what is going on unless you are there constantly.   Discord search features are, in a word, awkward, and leave a lot to be desired.   

 

9 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

I also started messing with a stack adapter for X-15, because I am a kind and generous ruler.

 

Someone had asked if I could make it more in this general shape, I'm not sure it looks the best. These adapters also wouldn't work for the XLR-11 or SERJ engine variants, so that stinks.

Generous Ruler?   Are you certain BT hasn't gone to your head?   

I think the shape of both of these adapters are nice.  Yes you could conceivably make the lower one "smoother" but that would interfere with optional parts that could be put on the X-15, the current profile, while not perfectly aerodynamic is perfectly modular compatible with most things people would do with X-15