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

[BSS_Snag]

Always love playing with this mod

A Sarnus H03M on the launchpad

 

[LoadingTimeExpert]

My ground test of the lunar rover system is not going well

https://i.imgur.com/v0AMdpv.mp4

But I have developed a novel form of propulsion

[LoadingTimeExpert]

4 hours ago, Gupyzer0 said:

Guys I might have a problem, while coming back from the Mun (JNSQ) with an Apollo I used the offset COM but with the sligthest change in the angle of attack my Command Module overheated very quickly and exploded. With normal COM the reentry worked as expected. Any solutions for that? or could it be a bug with the Apollo heatshield not "protecting" enough of the capsule for some reason?

Tried first with a 40 Km Pe target then worked my way up until 60 even skipping the atmosphere with normal COM while with the offset one the CM exploded.

I use offset COM and while the capsule does get very toasty, it rarely explodes on me. Either play around with the angle of attack and find one where heating isn't as bad, or rapidly adjust angle of attack constantly. Rock the capsule back and forth, in other words.

Or just don't use offset COM

[Cheesecake]

@CobaltWolf
Now that I want to start deltas again, I noticed that there are no decouplers for the GEM-40/46. Are these planned? And could you attach nodes here, similar to the Atlas V revamp?

[Hide1nbush1]

https://imgur.com/a/cXjZ6fc

Hello Guys I saw that I had one contract where everything was met, but I couldn't accept it is there a reason for that or is it broken ?

[DaveyJ576]

For the newer players of Bluedog Design Bureau, you should take into account that BDB is one of the most highly tested and developed mods for KSP. The development team is quite professional and has been working on this mod for over nine (9) years! While there certainly is a possibility that you might stumble across a previously unknown bug,  it is actually far more likely that your unfamiliarity with the mod and with KSP in general is much more the likely culprit of your issue(s). Installation problems being the next most likely.

Everyone here is more than happy to help. I have been playing for five years and I am still learning things all the time. It would pay you large dividends to make sure that your installation is good, and that you understand the basic mechanics of the game first. There are other forums on this site that can answer those questions. Another big help is searching within this thread before you post. You may very well be able to answer your question before having to make a new post.

So do some research first, read through the other threads, check out the various Wiki's available, and if you are still stumped then ask away! The dev team and the other experienced players will bend over backwards to assist. This is one of the best mods available for KSP. Enjoy!

[biohazard15]

3 hours ago, Cheesecake said:

Now that I want to start deltas again, I noticed that there are no decouplers for the GEM-40/46. Are these planned? And could you attach nodes here, similar to the Atlas V revamp?

Use mini radial decoupler and fiddle with move tool a bit to line up SRM's struts with Thor skirt's respective holes.

Editor Extensions mod is highly recommended for 9x symmetry.

[LoadingTimeExpert]

What is this supposed to be? It looks like a tin of sardines

Anyway I've been playing with the free IVA mod some more. The lunar shelter is much roomier than the ascent module, considering the lack of engine hardware.

[hugoraider]

Considering it looks like the Kodak logo, I'd say it's photo film .

[LoadingTimeExpert]

oh it says kerbochrome, yea that makes sense

Anyway I made this on a whim when I recognized this habit that doesn't make any sense. I mean realistically I could leave KSP running all day long in the background if I really wanted to and it wouldn't matter cause these missions take weeks. But hey, guess I don't want to miss anything

[Invaderchaos]

Did some more PBR conversions! (WIP, but on github) Pioneer 10/11, Ranger, and TACSAT/Syncom:

Spoiler

 

Edited August 26 by Invaderchaos

[Gupyzer0]

11 hours ago, LoadingTimeExpert said:

Or just don't use offset COM

Yup, will go without the offset COM

[Rodger]

8 hours ago, Hide1nbush1 said:

https://imgur.com/a/cXjZ6fc

Hello Guys I saw that I had one contract where everything was met, but I couldn't accept it is there a reason for that or is it broken ?

@Morphisor made the contracts, so might know more, but the fact the tech nodes have been renamed makes me suspicious. If the base nodes (not just the display names) have been changed I'd guess the contracts are incompatible with whatever tech tree mod you're using.

[Rodger]

22 hours ago, Gupyzer0 said:

Guys I might have a problem, while coming back from the Mun (JNSQ) with an Apollo I used the offset COM but with the sligthest change in the angle of attack my Command Module overheated very quickly and exploded. With normal COM the reentry worked as expected. Any solutions for that? or could it be a bug with the Apollo heatshield not "protecting" enough of the capsule for some reason?

Tried first with a 40 Km Pe target then worked my way up until 60 even skipping the atmosphere with normal COM while with the offset one the CM exploded.

There is a rare issue, that I’ve been unable to recreate, where heat shields don’t occlude as they should. Have you installed KSPCF? If not, it may help. Also make sure if you use Tweakscale that you use the Rescaled version.
 

Otherwise I think there’s a field I can try tweaking to boost how much the heat shields occlude, but not having the issue myself makes it very hard to test.

Edit: Doesn't look like there's an occlusion modifier field, so not sure there's much that can be done about it.

Edited August 26 by Rodger

[Cheesecake]

11 hours ago, biohazard15 said:

Use mini radial decoupler and fiddle with move tool a bit to line up SRM's struts with Thor skirt's respective holes.

Editor Extensions mod is highly recommended for 9x symmetry.

That's what I always do. However, it is much more convenient to simply clip them on, as is now the case with Atlas V.

[Gupyzer0]

11 hours ago, Rodger said:

There is a rare issue, that I’ve been unable to recreate, where heat shields don’t occlude as they should. Have you installed KSPCF? If not, it may help. Also make sure if you use Tweakscale that you use the Rescaled version.

Otherwise I think there’s a field I can try tweaking to boost how much the heat shields occlude, but not having the issue myself makes it very hard to test.

Edit: Doesn't look like there's an occlusion modifier field, so not sure there's much that can be done about it.

Thank you for the reply, I have KSPCF and I'm not using tweakscale at the moment. 

Maybe the AOA is a bit excessive becasue of some extra weight included by kerbalism's consumables / processes? 

I'll try later with a correction to the mass variable so the mass of the CM is the same as the default CM with all the resources onboard. Perhaps this was all my blunder 

Edited August 26 by Gupyzer0

[CobaltWolf]

19 hours ago, DaveyJ576 said:

For the newer players of Bluedog Design Bureau, you should take into account that BDB is one of the most highly tested and developed mods for KSP. The development team is quite professional and has been working on this mod for over nine (9) years! While there certainly is a possibility that you might stumble across a previously unknown bug,  it is actually far more likely that your unfamiliarity with the mod and with KSP in general is much more the likely culprit of your issue(s). Installation problems being the next most likely.

Everyone here is more than happy to help. I have been playing for five years and I am still learning things all the time. It would pay you large dividends to make sure that your installation is good, and that you understand the basic mechanics of the game first. There are other forums on this site that can answer those questions. Another big help is searching within this thread before you post. You may very well be able to answer your question before having to make a new post.

So do some research first, read through the other threads, check out the various Wiki's available, and if you are still stumped then ask away! The dev team and the other experienced players will bend over backwards to assist. This is one of the best mods available for KSP. Enjoy!

Honestly I'm so disconnected from the actual game at this point, most of the time when people PM me with issues I just have to tell them to ask here since you all have likely encountered the issue far more recently than I have, if at all.

[Hide1nbush1]

13 hours ago, Rodger said:

@Morphisor made the contracts, so might know more, but the fact the tech nodes have been renamed makes me suspicious. If the base nodes (not just the display names) have been changed I'd guess the contracts are incompatible with whatever tech tree mod you're using.

I'm using The Sky hawk Tech tree, I thought that it was made for BDB ?

[CobaltWolf]

31 minutes ago, Hide1nbush1 said:

I'm using The Sky hawk Tech tree, I thought that it was made for BDB ?

Yes but Skyhawk and the BDB contracts were made at different times, by different people, and I don't know if any thought was ever given to making sure they worked together.

[Gupyzer0]

1 hour ago, Hide1nbush1 said:

I'm using The Sky hawk Tech tree, I thought that it was made for BDB ?

BDB contracts should work with SSS as per this file has the required patches for them to work well.

Can you please show me the contracts window  (ALT-F10) look for the failing contract and show me the log at the end of it. 

Still SSS is a bit outdated right now, I'm working on a newer version but won't release it until BDB releases 1.14 as my version of SSS called Spacelines Tree is being constantly updated with newer parts/ parts merges of the development branch of BDB.

Edited August 26 by Gupyzer0

[Pappystein]

3 hours ago, Hide1nbush1 said:

I'm using The Sky hawk Tech tree, I thought that it was made for BDB ?

Sorry didn't realize that Gupyzer0 was actively talking about updates to SSS.    Original post removed (hopefully before most of you read it and respond that I am an 1D10T!)

Edited August 26 by Pappystein

[Gupyzer0]

2 hours ago, Pappystein said:

Sorry didn't realize that Gupyzer0 was actively talking about updates to SSS.    Original post removed (hopefully before most of you read it and respond that I am an 1D10T!)

No you're not pappystein, Lord of Hypergolics!!! 

[RocketBoy1641]

Apologies if I missed it along the way, but are there build instructions for the Saturn train (Earth Rendezvous) sections?

I am specificly interested in what goes on the top of the lower section for aerodynamic conciserations.

[RocketBoy1641]

On 8/3/2024 at 2:41 PM, Pappystein said:

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)

 

 

Thus why the proper way of referring to the WhisKY is just as I typed it.

[Pappystein]

35 minutes ago, RocketBoy1641 said:

Apologies if I missed it along the way, but are there build instructions for the Saturn train (Earth Rendezvous) sections?

I am specificly interested in what goes on the top of the lower section for aerodynamic conciserations.

Really the only thing that would make sense is just a simple aerodynamic cone above the S-IVC stage.  IIRC, there is the 4.25m Liquid Rocket Booster nose cone available.