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

[CobaltWolf]

5 minutes ago, Sgt.Shutesie said:

This is kind of a balance report, since you shouldn't be able to land on minimus and go to both Kerbin's moons' orbits on your second satellite launch. It involves the Brun selection of parts and sienno probe core.

I basically got to the upper orbit of kerbin, upper orbit of the Mün, upper orbit of minimus and a landing on minimus with a single rocket from only unlocking 3 more tech tree nodes for under 5,000 kerbins. Yes this is impressive for not even having to run numbers, check d-v, etc, but I don't feel like it should be possible to do this at this point in a career mode.

The screenshots include:

First, the rocket with fuel, electric charge in the upper right.

Second, the science and money gained from only the second launch of a default setting career mode.

Third, the rocket and it's cost.

Fourth and final, the unlocked tech tree nodes.

Is this with the latest dev build? We just did a big balance pass on many of the parts. If not, well, I kind of knew Vanguard was OP. I'll look into it.

[VenomousRequiem]

2 minutes ago, Sgt.Shutesie said:

It's also worth mentioning that the sienno probe core does not use enough electric charge while transmitting to account for 2 transmissions on a suborbital flight.

You're saying it's OP? I always liked that you could use it without it dying on you...

[Sgt.Shutesie]

I have the dev build with the new SRBs after your SRB stream, but I don't recall any new ones.

[CobaltWolf]

1 hour ago, Sgt.Shutesie said:

I have the dev build with the new SRBs after your SRB stream, but I don't recall any new ones.

No, this was... last night. @Jso has been helping me balance all the fuel tanks to stock values. What we also found was the ISP on many of the engines was very high, so that will also have to be looked at.

EDIT: Forgot to pack my sleeping pills when I left for the weekend. Insomnia: Bad for me, but I suppose good for you people. I killed the time by modeling a couple new science parts. Hydrometer on the left, IR Spectrometer on the right.

Edited January 9, 2016 by CobaltWolf

[Araym]

On 7/1/2016 at 11:33 PM, CobaltWolf said:

Oh, I forgot! Preview of some of the stuff that I'll be showing off on stream.

 

More testing:

I tried to duplicate the launch configuration shown in that serie of pictures (pretty easy to do: Thor XL and L tank, 3x Castor, Delta-K upper stage, probe), just to analize Delta-K upper stage performances after the balancing pass on part (latest dev release I already had)

I find someway now the rocket too much "light" and very prone to flipping, in any configuration with the castor SRBs added: the more mass in the lower portion of the rocket itself made very difficoult to control up to the booster separation.

Then when it become lighter, left the booster away, it regain a better flight qualities...

Not to mention that a 9x SRB configuration (... i can do more than the standard max 8x simmetry using "Editor Extension" mod, to be like a Delta 2000/Delta 3000 rocket) is even more deadly to pilot.

Tried then without any booster, and the rocket flies perfectly.

My 2 cents about:

- I generally use a very early gravity turn with all my rockets, from when KSP left the "soup-alike" atmosphere we had in the past, with more standard-stockalike dimension (1.25 or 2.5 meters diameter): the "in between" thor's diameter, rockets seem to not like it. I had to return in a more vertical first phase, to left behind the thicker part of atmosphere, and then do an aggressive gravity turn later, in the thinner one.
It's not an issue to make orbit, but I learned to do so to maximize dV using as soon as possible the gravity kick: in such a way, the longer-streched thor-alike rockets with boosters are loosing performance against shorter, but larger in diameter (2.5m), rockets...

- should Castor boosters be lighter in mass (less fuel?), to avoid to shift mass too much in the back of the rocket and making it difficoult to use?

- if you are going to prepare something like the bigger GEM boosters (to recreate something like the Delta-7000 and any after that) i predict that the resulting instability could be even worse, with added mass on the back...

- is it better to use such of a rocket, with boosters, only with heavy payload? I tried it just to put a satellite on an high Kerbin equatorial orbit (in career mode I had a perfect contract in a orbit past Mun's one) using a light one to boost dV, and it become a BAD decision: marginal gain with the Castor SRB added, mostly lost to control the flipping issue, as such a light payload could be put in the needed orbit, actually, without any use of SRBs

- Probably, the Thor engine itself has TOO MUCH thrust (so too much fuel is used in the early phase of the launch): with such tiny payload, the thor engine alone (without any booster) should have a TWR just capable to be used only to launch a rocket made like an early Thor-Ablestar (basically: your engine, your grey L tank -not the blue-ish XL - and the long adapter-tank, plus the ablestar tank-engine as upper stage: in that configuration, without booster, it should have a max TWR at launch about at 1.1, barelly capable to start from the launchpad, using as first stage a configuration very likely the early Thor PGM balistic rocket).
From my research, longer Thor were probably never launched without SRBs:

- Thorad-Agena D (the first streched Thor), was always launched with 3x Castor-2 SRBs, and with the much lighter AGENA D, rather a Delta-K...

- Delta-L (same first stage as Thorad Agena, with the difference of an AbleStar upper instead of an Agena): 3x Castor-2 by default also...

- Longer and later Delta: never launched without (various types of) SRBs, from x3 to x9, as the core only wasn't capable to leave a launchpad without...

... so it should be almost doable the thing about having a good ISP but lower thrust main Thor engine needing booster not to have more dV (that is the main first stage engine with more fuel to achieve) but just enough TWR to leave the launchpad, consuming enough fuel to have a TWR barelly higher than 1 after booster separation...

Basically, any sort of replica of a later Delta (aside the Delta 3, that we not have at the moment, without the proper upper stage) shown like yours in the picture above should have a VERY LOWER thrust than it still have...
I'm going to try some more test and propose to you some configuration of thrust/isp, if you like...

----

Beside all this mumbling, I found another bug:

bluedog_ablestarTank has:

	RESOURCE
	{
		name = Oxidizer
		amount = 110
		maxAmount = 1110
	}

... there is an "1" not needed in "maxAmount" (it should be 110/110... not 1110 )

 

Edited January 9, 2016 by Araym

[Jso]

7 hours ago, VenomousRequiem said:

...Vanguard has like 7,500 m/s DeltaV... 

The mass got overlooked in the update. The Vanguard engine should be 0.58 tons, not 0.1. Able hasn't been tweaked yet, but it's doesn't look like it be a major dv changing adjustment. Vanguard-Able is just too much rocket for a size 1x Kerbin. We could cripple it but I'd hate to do that.

I think I got another 500 dv out of the Titan II second stage.

[CobaltWolf]

3 hours ago, Jso said:

The mass got overlooked in the update. The Vanguard engine should be 0.58 tons, not 0.1. Able hasn't been tweaked yet, but it's doesn't look like it be a major dv changing adjustment. Vanguard-Able is just too much rocket for a size 1x Kerbin. We could cripple it but I'd hate to do that.

I think I got another 500 dv out of the Titan II second stage.

Well what payloads are people putting on the thing? Explorer is crazy OP.

@Araym duly noted, I'd appreciate your suggestions for thrust/ISP/etc. It's worth noting that Thor flew all the way up to Agena D without strap on boosters, so I don't think it's TWR is tooo low. Also worth noting that the rocket in the screenshots wasn't using a Delta 2 first stage engine - the RS-27 still has to be made.

[Araym]

Still going under testing of the Thor-series rocket...

- SSR-B "Dioscuri" Solid Rocket Booster (bluedog_castorSRB) definitely has TOO MUCH fuel inside -350 units (so its mass offset too much any rocket using it): in its diameter of about 0.5m (it's smaller tha a standard 0.625m tank), taking by eye its lenght, should be in the range of 180 units (made a paralle both with stock SRB tweakscaled down, and with RLA's solids that came in 0.625m diameters). I'm still looking to find a balanced amount of thrust...

- About the Thor engine itself, the SSR-275 "Odin" Liquid Engine (bluedog_thorEngine) definitely has its thrust too high and has a too low ISP at sea level, leading in long tank configuration with the Delta-K to mass unbalances. I first lowered the thrust, then now I'm working with ISP: probably it will end in the range of 200kN-ISP 290 a.s.l./310 vacuum for the main engine, with a little change to the vernier only in the range of ISP at 270 a.s.l./290 vacuum, keeping them at 20kN:

• plenty capable to launch an earlier Thor-Agena D or a Thor-Ablestar
• in the need (like real life) of some boosters if used with any longer tank (like it was a Thorad-Agena D or the Delta-L, the first using an Ablestar upper mounted on top of a streched Thor)
• capable to launch a Delta-K, in the longer configuretion made with an XL tank+L tank, with 3x Castor booster and a payload in the range of 1 tons (a basic probe) with the upper stage just needed for the little kick to circularize the orbit after ascent (basically the Delta-K fully fueled plus another tons of the probe, means more than 1500m/s dV available for Delta-K PLUS any in the probe... it's an upper stage interplanetary capable )

Still tweaking, also, the amount of gimbal: the vernier are mostly a "cosmetic addon" than a really help for the rocket: tweaked up to 15° of gimbal, they did almost nothing to help steering the rocket and avoid any remaining risk of flipping. With a main engine moved from 3° to 5°, the rocked magically stopped to flip EVEN flown by MechJeb (if the stupid autopilot can fly it, it's perfect balanced ... still looking now to round the numbers...)
 

[Araym]

24 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Well what payloads are people putting on the thing? Explorer is crazy OP.

@Araym duly noted, I'd appreciate your suggestions for thrust/ISP/etc. It's worth noting that Thor flew all the way up to Agena D without strap on boosters, so I don't think it's TWR is tooo low. Also worth noting that the rocket in the screenshots wasn't using a Delta 2 first stage engine - the RS-27 still has to be made.

... ops... we crossed each other post...

Definitely, a Thor (in the configuration almost likely the early balistic missile) could send an Agena D in space, leaving to it its circularization...
... but as parallel, a "Thor" should be done with just the "bluedog_thorLongTank" + "bluedog_thorLongAdapter"...
SRB were added just to send maybe more later and heavier Agena D-based spy satellites.

ANY longer Thor-based rocket (from Thorad-Agena D or Delta-L onward) HAD ALWAYS SRBs (at least 3), meaning the needs of them to have enough TWR at launchpad, because the MB-3 / RS-27 engine had NEVER enough thrust to move the rocket with any kind of upper stage, without SRBs.....

... I'm testing some example to send to you, with some "tweaked" parts' .cfg files

 

Edited January 9, 2016 by Araym

[Jso]

2 hours ago, Araym said:

Still tweaking, also, the amount of gimbal: the vernier are mostly a "cosmetic addon" than a really help for the rocket: tweaked up to 15° of gimbal, they did almost nothing to help steering the rocket and avoid any remaining risk of flipping. With a main engine moved from 3° to 5°, the rocked magically stopped to flip EVEN flown by MechJeb (if the stupid autopilot can fly it, it's perfect balanced ... still looking now to round the numbers...)
 

The verniers are giving you roll control.

How many Thor fuselage configurations are there?

[Araym]

55 minutes ago, Jso said:

The verniers are giving you roll control.

How many Thor fuselage configurations are there?

Later, in tests, noticed that the verniers are just for roll: I better tweaked the main engine gimbal.
CobaltWolf has already the full package about my changes, right now.

 

As "Thor fuselage configurations" what do you mean? In real life or "possible" in game???

[Jso]

13 minutes ago, Araym said:

As "Thor fuselage configurations" what do you mean? In real life or "possible" in game???

In the game.

[CobaltWolf]

@Araym can you post your tweaks here too so other people can chime in? I'm not sure about some of it - Thor's ISP seems a bit high for one. Remember there is another engine coming for Delta II if you're worried about the long stack draining fuel too fast. I still have to change the fuel amount for the Castor, but it is far too high right now. More fuel in a 0.5m SRB than the Hammer which is 1.25m and about the same length.

[Araym]

3 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

@Araym can you post your tweaks here too so other people can chime in? I'm not sure about some of it - Thor's ISP seems a bit high for one. Remember there is another engine coming for Delta II if you're worried about the long stack draining fuel too fast. I still have to change the fuel amount for the Castor, but it is far too high right now. More fuel in a 0.5m SRB than the Hammer which is 1.25m and about the same length.

My change are also to me surelly not "final":

up to this moment, the ISP/Thrust changes are aimed to avoid too much fuel usage in the first part of an ascent (that brings the "flipping issue" as the thor engine from the last dev release) but also are a "work in progress" to balance then both for the final stage of the ascent, aiming to deplete the fuel, in the "longer Delta" I designed, arriving at apoapsis.

Thor Tweaks 1.0.0.zip

There a zip, with my latest Thor engine and Castor SRB tweaked (the latter, in the original dev release has TOO MUCH thrust and fuel mass for its size), and a serie of craft used as reference to balance it (craft comes already with the "tweaked engines": install the pack in the GameData like a mod: it add the changed engine to the BD folders, without overwriting any part but adding the new one with the labe "Test" in their names)
Aiming of the pack (to recreate an useful series of "replicas" not too much powerful):

Test 1"Thor-Ablestar 1", Test 2 "Thor-Able 1" and Test 3 "Thor-Able 2" should have enough TWR to be launched as they are...
Test 5 "Thorad-Agena D" should not be capable to lift off without SRBs but capable to do so with a 3x SRBs; also it should be like that the Test 4 "Delta L", but in game the lighter upper stage allow a "core only" possible barelly: it could be good...

Test craft from #6 to #9 NEVER should lift off without at least 3x SRBs. With those configuration and the "original" Thor engine, too much flipping was the problem. My tweaked engine is trying to aim a less center of mass displacement during first flight phase (up to 20-25 km, where thick atmosphere produce the flipping issue) but is still not optimal (too much low fuel usage) above that altitude...

My ideas about: still trying new combination.
I'm slowly trying to have a lower a.s.l. ISP, with a bit more higher global thrust, to balance (with a vacuum ISP still to be found) the turning point of balance:

- longer rockets uncapable to lift off without SRBs, a not dangerous center of mass change during ascent, but still not enough vacuum isp to achieve orbit by the first stage itself (all the test were made aiming a 120x120 km circular orbit)

------------- EDIT 1 ----------------

... i think that, aside thrust reduction, the major turning point was found:

the gimbal!

Main Thor engine in the "original" release had too low gimbal to manage the longer stack of fuel tank (in the download file above, "Test 9" craft). 6° gimbal in the main engine (leaving at 10° the vernier thrusters as they were original) is optimal to avoid "flipping issues".

I'm now balancing ISP values (low vacuum ISP, higher thrust) to not let the same rocket be "orbital capable" without using upper stage...

 

Edited January 9, 2016 by Araym

[Araym]

Further tests and tweaks done.

TL;TR summary:

• "Thor engine test 6" has still lower thrust than the "original", but a bit higher than "test 5" version. It pays that with an ISP lowered a lot overall (slightly reduced on verniers, a lot on main engine).
  Main tweak to avoid the "original" flipping behaviour was put the main engine bell gimbal at 6°, with vernier still at 10° like "original".
  This configuration leaves open a possibility for an "advanced engine" with better stats (basically those we have, actually, as the "original"??? ) keeping in mind that the turning point to have a flyable long rocket was the changed gimbal value.
• "Dioscuri SRB test 2" left at "placeholder" lower values both in thrust and solid fuel quantity, with a slightly different (better) ISP values than original, to have a central stack capable to be in a TWR > 1 after separation (the longer version i made, "Delta 2000" with 3x SRB, at separation, stay at TWR=1.2~). Better proportion could be done by @CobaltWolf knowing their real dimensions, but they should be around those values.
• For comparison, there are updated .craft files for both engines ("test 5" and "test 6", and when needed/suitable, the "Dioscuri test 2" SRBs). "g" versions are with the "test 5" engine, "f" versions with the new tweaked "test 6" engine (the latter are probably what we should use in the end of a balancing pass)

 

Download test parts and test craft here: Thor tweaks 1.0.1

FULL REPORTS:

Basically, the "enormous TWR and fuel consumption and lacking of gimbal" that the original parts had, building issues in flight like a flipping rocket, is gone...

Short Thor version + small upper stages are plenty capable to put small payloads in a lot of high orbits around Kerbin without the use of any SRB.

Longer version gained a better control during flight, and with a proper ascent profile are no more prone to "flipping issue", when the "magical 6° value" was found as balancement for main engine gimbal.

To understand what I build and because I called the rockets in that way, you could look at sites like http://andegraf.com/rockets/ to make comparisons. They are not meant to be "exactly replicas", but just to let feel the hypotesis of "advanced in development" in a kerbalish-alike series.

As soon the first stage is built with more tanks, it start to have a sense to add some SRBs: as I pointed before, in the real-life "Delta series", they were totally needed when the engine basically stayed the same from the earlier "PGM-17 Thor", but more fuel was loaded in the stretched tanks, to have enough TWR to lift-off. In stock KSP, and with tanks provided by CobaltWolf, the limit in lenght to be real-life-alike should be the rocked I called "Delta 1000", that has not (or just barelly, if flown in a very low orbit) an orbital capability on the first stage+SRBs alone. "Delta 2000" has a bit of over-performance than real life, capable to achieve a 120x120 orbit without using any fuel from Daleth/Delta-K upper stage, but stock-KSP is known to allow better performances in replicas, caused by the small planet dimension (I always ended a circularization at that 120 km altitude with a leftover of 80/60 fuel units + the relative amount of oxidizer: a total of around 100-120 m/s left unused).

Performance of the "test 6 engine", overall, is in the range of stock LV-T30/LV-T45: basically could be considered an LV-T30 (stock not gimballing engine with little more thrust than the stock gimballing one) with the gimbal took from a LV-T45, and ISP values that fall shortly against them both. Considered as an "early engine for early rocket", the gain of gimbal and thrust, I felt that this low ISP could be fitting as fair trade.

I still didn't any "max payload" test for the rockets in the final "f versions": the provided "basic probe" is a good example of what could achieve any sort of "orbital contract" in Kerbin's SoI, with a weight of 0.8 t. and 1000 m/s dV, NOT counting all the fuel left in all the upper stages I made.
The "Delta 2000" could probably load a probe up to 2-3 tons without any problem (probably even a bit more) or pushed even further (if more SRB than 3 are used and tweaked to burn longer to have a TWR >= 1 after separation). Left with similar paylod than mine, it is fully interplanetary capable (almost 1800 m/s dV left in orbit + the previously noted 1000 m/s of the probe alone).

A bit different approach was done with the rockets using an Agena D-like upper stage: as used in the spy satellite progam "Corona", the Agena-series were mostly considere both "upper stage" and ALSO "payload", having directly connected the spy cameras and such parts used with it.
I build a similary setup using science parts, making an heavier stack in a similar, peaceful, scientific vessel.

A low thrust/low ISP engine, also, leaves room (as CobaltWolf pointed) for a better engine and better SRBs to push further the series in future (if we consider the actual engine as an "MB-3/ Thor PGM 17" derived engine, we should have then the RS-27; if consider the actual "Dioscuri" SRB as a Castor 1 or 2, we should have the Castor 4/GEM) to have better payload/ranges.
Left as they are in the "original dev release", any "better part" should risk to fall in the "a lot-lot-lot overpowered", as the already "original parts" are well out of balance.

My "more than 2 cents" in the balancing of these parts is done, for the moment.
I didn't look at any other parts in the pack as deep as those, for the moment, BUT for a first glance overall they could need similar tweaks, after all the tanks had their masses and fuel loads reduced.

Edited January 10, 2016 by Araym

[VenomousRequiem]

There's just something so majestic about launching with HullCam...

[Araym]

Little addition to my "testing phase":

... I took a look on the Atlas parts.........
... and "yes": they are suffering the same problem as Thor ones.

Tanks were tweaked to stock-alike values, but now engines are way overpowered, left at values as pre-tank tweaks. At least for those Muo parts that are meant to be build as early 1 and half stage Atlas (I didn't look in deeply on Atlas V parts)

--------- EDIT ---------

Well... actually Atlas Booster ans Sustainer are not "overpowered", if looked at them in the longer Atlas II-alike point of view:

with a big centaur with the longer Inon tank, plus a good 2.5/3 tons payload, they are good enough to lift 2 medium muo tanks + the base long tank and adapter tank to build the 1 and half stage.

With added some SRBs booster, there is also room for a medium-heavy lift up to 5-6 tons.

Smaller Atlas could be tweaked using VAB menu tweakable slider, to avoid overthrust in lighter version. Also, sadly, such payloads does not allow a more real life difference in thrust: the booster engine were in the range of 950/1000 kN or more (it depends on version), the sustainer were a mere 386 kN... if such difference was brought in the game, it'd be almost unuseful, in the  1 and half staging (aside maybe on a Mercury mission, even with a smalle Agena, the sustainer has never enough power to be able to "sustain" alone any weight left as payload before atlas fuel depletion)

On my liking, there could be some more variations on ISP values from booster and sustainer: Boosters were in the range of 269 a.s.l./300 vacuum ISP, but the sustainer had (a lame) 220 a.s.l. and a (better) 316 vacuum ISP...
But those are not major problem Actual values are fine.

 

In meanwhile, I found that some Mercury part in the latest dev releases (2016-01-07, 2016-01-06 n°2, 2016-01-03) are broken: if loaded in a scene, they created some strange bug (engines sound roaring even with no engines active, not working MechJeb) and a pretty weird response on command (basically SAS not working, even manually used) but if I reverted on those of the dev release 2015-12-29, they are perfectly fine as always.
It was probably something related to some model of them, as the cfg. files does not look particulary different in any part.

I couldn't find what part caused the problem, but it is without any doubt in the "mercury" folder: as soon I found a stable release to backup, no problem were replicated.

Edited January 10, 2016 by Araym

[Jso]

10 hours ago, Araym said:

My "more than 2 cents" in the balancing of these parts is done, for the moment.

I'll say! That's a lot to look at. Engine "Test 6" has a correct feel to it. Thanks for including the craft files.

[Ravenchant]

@CobaltWolf Sorry, didn't see the notification until now! Have you gotten your PF textures to work yet?  

[CobaltWolf]

@Araym That is a lot to go over T.T I haven't really been able to work on stuff the past couple of days but I'll look into them.

EDIT: Everyone please feel free to test Araym's tweaks and let me know if you agree. I'll fold them into the main release if everyone here agrees. I'm really not good at this whole balancing thing. Or this modding thing.

@Ravenchant They're working fine! I haven't actually made any yet but @MeCripp converted one of the existing BDB textures to a PF texture. I just tagged you guys cus I needed help converting the fairing bases to PF.

Edited January 10, 2016 by CobaltWolf

[Araym]

@CobaltWolf will probably either love or hate me, before or after:

Found another little  bug, in the bluedog_DeltaK_LowerTank :

I was puzzled by the fact in the in game description, it should have some monoprop, but it was not showing any...

		RESOURCE
	{
		name = Monopropellant
		amount = 20
		maxAmount = 20
	}

should be:

		RESOURCE
	{
		name = MonoPropellant
		amount = 20
		maxAmount = 20
	}

with the "P" in "Propellant" in capital letter

 

[CobaltWolf]

No idea what I would do without you guys haha.

[NotAgain]

On ‎06‎/‎01‎/‎2016 at 9:48 PM, CobaltWolf said:

There's not way to make the stock fairings break apart in three parts, to my knowledge.

Try Stock Clamshell Fairings, availiable on Kerbal Stuff.

The mod works on ALL fairings, including those in his mod (I have tested it).

Edited January 11, 2016 by NotAgain
Adding stuff.

[NotAgain]

On ‎09‎/‎01‎/‎2016 at 4:09 AM, Sgt.Shutesie said:

This is kind of a balance report, since you shouldn't be able to land on minimus and go to both Kerbin's moons' orbits on your second satellite launch. It involves the Brun selection of parts and sienno probe core.

I basically got to the upper orbit of kerbin, upper orbit of the Mün, upper orbit of minimus and a landing on minimus with a single rocket from only unlocking 3 more tech tree nodes for under 5,000 kerbins. Yes this is impressive for not even having to run numbers, check d-v, etc, but I don't feel like it should be possible to do this at this point in a career mode.

That's all well and good (oh, and well done), but with RT installed, you can have serious issues getting a signal up to Minmus.

[CobaltWolf]

26 minutes ago, NotAgain said:

That's all well and good (oh, and well done), but with RT installed, you can have serious issues getting a signal up to Minmus.

Unfortunately, we cannot balance based around the limitations of a mod that players may or may not have installed.