Jump to content

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


CobaltWolf

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, NotAgain said:

Apologies for my potential ignorance, but I can't find the link to the Apollo Beta release.

Go to the first page of the topic > Link buttons> Under Roadmap on the right. Note, that is the development link, so things have changed that can and will break crafts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Sgt.Shutesie said:

Go to the first page of the topic > Link buttons> Under Roadmap on the right. Note, that is the development link, so things have changed that can and will break crafts. 

to explain further, once you're at the homepage of the github (not the releases page) click download zip at the right side of the screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, NeoFatalis said:

Is there going to be a rover? it could maybe fit in surface experiment pack:rolleyes:

 

1 hour ago, Z3R0_0NL1N3 said:

LEM looks great! Also curious about KIS-compatible rovers.

going to be included in a future SEP release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jimbodiah said:

Wow, nice LEM!!! Looking forward to seeing it added :)

39 minutes ago, IronCretin said:

That LEM is absolutely beautiful!

Thanks guys! That actually brings up something I've been discussing with some people that I'd like to get feedback on. Since many of the LEM parts would be fairly niche, or even single-use (not useable for anything else) I think it would be best to try and keep the LEM to as few parts as possible. This would make it both easier to assemble, and create a minimal footprint in the part catalog.

Some things that were discussed:

- Engines are kept separate, to make them useable elsewhere.
- descent stage will integrate the four legs, with the basic (no ladder) leg available separately as well. It also has fuel, and possibly a decoupler on the top node.
- ascent stage will integrate the RCS blocks, fuel, batteries. The antennas will be separate, for animation reasons and so that they can be used elsewhere. There will be a space for the docking port on top.

With these, the LEM would currently be around 10 parts, 5 of which would be the antennas. Please feel free to share your thoughts/insights on this.

Edited by CobaltWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@CobaltWolf I think that would be a great idea. The amout of fiddly kit that would be involved otherwise would make it a pain to put together.

Love your work!

- Josh

Spoiler

I'm actually bummed that the LEM isn't ready to fly yet. I was about to start the Apollo Applications Program and then stumbled on the Kane CSM & Sarnus LV. I'm definitely going to use them when I get home. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your reasoning on the LEM design is sound, @CobaltWolf. The OLDD/FASA LEM could be annoyingly fidgety to assemble. Having the option to use the antennae and ladderless leg elsewhere is a definite plus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loving the LEM but if you're making the legs also why not just nake the tank seperate as well? It's not very difficult to put the landing legs on if it's well designed (which ofc it will be). And maybe a seperate ladder part on the LEM texture sheet because we don't really have a nice, straight, fixed, low profile, good looking ladder in the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@akron, the link for the 'how-to node rotate' was here.

I figured out how I made it work on accident, as well. It is due to it being, and my wanting a 45 degree angle. Being vector addition, it didn't matter at all what numbers were used as long as the X and Z values were equal, but opposing in sign. (for 45 degrees in either direction. Trial and error was used to figure out which was needed on each side.)

If the angle needs to be different than 45 deg, then yes, actually doing the trig in degrees would make a large difference.

Updated patch (same functionality, saner values in the patch) attached below for testing.

Spoiler

@PART[bluedog_Apollo_Block2_ServiceModule]:NEEDS[UniversalStorage]
// Block2SM_US.MM.cfg 
// Yeppppp, MODULAR MODULES, WOOOOO
{
	node_stack_US1 = -0.55, -1.04, 0.54, -1.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0
	node_stack_US2 = -0.55, -0.57, 0.54, -1.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0
	node_stack_US3 = -0.55, -0.16, 0.54, -1.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0
	node_stack_US4 = -0.55, 0.31, 0.54, -1.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0
	node_stack_US5 = 0.55, -1.04, -0.54, 1.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0
	node_stack_US6 = 0.55, -0.57, -0.54, 1.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0
	node_stack_US7 = 0.55, -0.16, -0.54, 1.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0
	node_stack_US8 = 0.55, 0.31, -0.54, 1.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0
}

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do the US modules actually fit in the bay? 0.o

Darn, @daishi would have really loved to see this, too!

Believe it or not, its actually time for the LEM to start getting textured! Most of the principal modeling is done, and now I need to start figuring out the look I'm going for. Stream tonight, with a special surprise for those looking forward to the LEM portion of this mod...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/8/2016 at 9:06 AM, komodo said:

Regarding Etoh:... If I recall correctly, this is why the tank was split (it was once a very long single 1.25 m tank), as a full load plus a Mercury wasn't able to lift off. For suborbital hops, try just the larger of the two tanks on its lonesome, and see how that goes. I think that's how I've been doing mine at least... 

Why have the longer tank? Personally, I use it as a cheap satellite launcher, especially at the early stages of career. Even later on, it's very inexpensive, and works perfectly well for small payloads.

( I also think... Well... on Kerbin, sub orbital is a difficult term, with the ease of orbit. On one of the re scales or RSS, the difference in grunt power to go from sub orbital to full orbital is significant. If Etoh was too spritely, it wouldn't be much of a leap to going orbital. Or, gameplay wise, it gives atlas a purpose :) )

Both tanks or only the longer, with ETOH engine ISP, an Hermes-Mercury capsule will never go orbital, but visually, not using the "chekered pattern" one make the suborbital karbaled one very "unpleasant" and different from what expected:
why do I think that the thrust value was just miscalculated?

Because when I did a simple math: (Thrust/vacuum ISP)*sea level ISP
I found that "143" was exactly the value of thrust needed at sea level to have, exactly, for the "full/2 tanks" Hermes-Etoh, 1.1 TWR and just send it in suborbital.
So reversed:

(Sea Level Thrust / Sea level ISP) * Vacuum ISP
(143/230)*255=158.5434782608696... rounded at 158.5 for me, for a basic rocket at 1.1 TWR sea level, that looks like a Mercury-Redstone, fly only suborbital, has not any better capacity (it cannot be orbital even using the Hermes retrorocket as boost in altitude) and do not remove the needs of the Muo-Atlas to send the Hermes-Mercury in orbit.
Use of such a rocket? Mostly nothing as it is (aside probably send in low Kerbin orbit very small payloads like the same early US probes that already we have in BD)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...