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

[Araym]

Additional images:

How it fits in the VAB, under the gantry:

And seen from above:

 

Eyecandy:

 

A "launch test":

Edited August 11, 2016 by Araym

[CobaltWolf]

hrmm. I think the most compelling argument is the fact that it just barely fits into the VAB. Funnily enough, the IRL Saturn variants faced the same issue - most of them could only achieve a modest stretch of the S-IC without being too big. After that it was side boosters, making a full diameter S-IVB, etc, to maximize what they could fit into the height.

[Wahgineer]

Meh, 6.25m is still the better option. Heck, it would probably be only a little bigger than the 5.26m one

Edited August 11, 2016 by awsumindyman

[Araym]

1 hour ago, CobaltWolf said:

hrmm. I think the most compelling argument is the fact that it just barely fits into the VAB. Funnily enough, the IRL Saturn variants faced the same issue - most of them could only achieve a modest stretch of the S-IC without being too big. After that it was side boosters, making a full diameter S-IVB, etc, to maximize what they could fit into the height.

So??? So???
Am I capable to convince you that 3.75-5.625 is "good" for a Sarnus V????????

Aside from dimension, also by a "performance" side and balancement:

all that fuel needs pretty capable engines at initial thrust... BUT even with abismal low vacuum ISP for a J-2 engine (the opposite of the real life one), basically the third stage is unneeded to orbit (leaving a third stage capable probably of "interplanetary travels", rather than just a Kerbin to Mun/Minmus travel).

My placeholder could send probably a whole station in Mun orbit, not only a CSM+LEM...

[komodo]

7 minutes ago, Araym said:

So??? So???
Am I capable to convince you that 3.75-5.625 is "good" for a Sarnus V????????

Aside from dimension, also by a "performance" side and balancement:

all that fuel needs pretty capable engines at initial thrust... BUT even with abismal low vacuum ISP for a J-2 engine (the opposite of the real life one), basically the third stage is unneeded to orbit (leaving a third stage capable probably of "interplanetary travels", rather than just a Kerbin to Mun/Minmus travel).

My placeholder could send probably a whole station in Mun orbit, not only a CSM+LEM...

This is the issue that pops up with the small system size that stock KSP uses... Anything that looks/performs like a 'real' rocket tends to be mega OP... I'm not sure if there was ever a consensus reached on the best way to tackle this problem. It's a very tricky balancing act

[CobaltWolf]

8 minutes ago, Araym said:

So??? So???
Am I capable to convince you that 3.75-5.625 is "good" for a Sarnus V????????

Aside from dimension, also by a "performance" side and balancement:

all that fuel needs pretty capable engines at initial thrust... BUT even with abismal low vacuum ISP for a J-2 engine (the opposite of the real life one), basically the third stage is unneeded to orbit (leaving a third stage capable probably of "interplanetary travels", rather than just a Kerbin to Mun/Minmus travel).

My placeholder could send probably a whole station in Mun orbit, not only a CSM+LEM...

we basically have been working under the assumption that we are keeping things balanced with stock parts, and then recommending a rescale mod or SMURFF to compensate. That way we aren't significantly underpowered compared to other mods.

[Wahgineer]

1 minute ago, CobaltWolf said:

we basically have been working under the assumption that we are keeping things balanced with stock parts, and then recommending a rescale mod or SMURFF to compensate. That way we aren't significantly underpowered compared to other mods.

So, basically, you're saying that 6.25m is the final decision?

[Araym]

27 minutes ago, awsumindyman said:

Meh, 6.25m is still the better option. Heck, it would probably be only a little bigger than the 5.26m one

Tested when I was working on the scale of my placeholder, and back in time, when OLDD Saturn V (a pretty 0.23/0.25 KSP mod, sadly no more working) was in the 64% scale:
it does not fit inside in the VAB, fully assembled. It needed some sort of "Hangar Extension" mod to work on it decently during assembly.
Obviously, if proportioned both in height and diameter.

Also, at 6.25m diameter, the disproportion is pretty consistent, then, with the third stage at 3.75m...

9 minutes ago, komodo said:

This is the issue that pops up with the small system size that stock KSP uses... Anything that looks/performs like a 'real' rocket tends to be mega OP... I'm not sure if there was ever a consensus reached on the best way to tackle this problem. It's a very tricky balancing act

 

8 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

we basically have been working under the assumption that we are keeping things balanced with stock parts, and then recommending a rescale mod or SMURFF to compensate. That way we aren't significantly underpowered compared to other mods.

... and then EVEN worse on balance, as the very same J-2 engine, needed to be capable to move (in a 5x config) the S-II second stage (and at 6.25m, it is even more massive than mine, at 5.625m), achieves more than overkilling performance when single used on a 3.75m S-IV-B third stage.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Araym

[Jso]

8 minutes ago, komodo said:

This is the issue that pops up with the small system size that stock KSP uses... Anything that looks/performs like a 'real' rocket tends to be mega OP... I'm not sure if there was ever a consensus reached on the best way to tackle this problem. It's a very tricky balancing act

Yup. Anything not mega op has actually become a big red flag that we screwed up somehow. The fact that our payloads tend to weigh the same or more as real size payloads mitigates it somewhat. Saturn's got two cryo stages in it. It's complicating things.

[Wahgineer]

@Araym, this whole mod is overkill. Heck, even Cobalt said this mod should be used in a 2 or 3x rescaled system to balance it out.

[Jso]

16 hours ago, komodo said:

After some serious hiccups, the latest dev release has a preliminary compatibility patch for USI-LS. 

Now, heavy emphasis on preliminary: I cannot possibly claim it to be balanced, or even fun. (It might be Fun in the Dwarf Fortress sense, though.)

For any particularly brave souls out there... I am looking for any and all feedback and/or ideas for what sorts of features you would expect from a life support support patch.

Specifically:

• Values: How many supplies? How much endurance? Application of one part/module over another?
• Balance: Is there a progression in career? Should there be one? How steep should it be? Real vs. Fun?
• Logistics: That is, should the supplies be in the crewed parts? The service modules? Some of each?
• Anything else: Really, anything else that you can think of. 

It's just been roughed in, and it works, but I need to do a lot of adjusting still, I suspect.

With the caveat that I still haven't actually used USI, but I do think I have it installed correctly now (thanks!). Stick to convention. It appears USI does not add supplies to pods, and there's a 15 day grace period, so should supplies really be in the pods? We might be able to do something with B9PartSwitch to make the supply pods switchable between fuel and life support supplies. I don't know that they should carry both.

[Araym]

30 minutes ago, awsumindyman said:

@Araym, this whole mod is overkill. Heck, even Cobalt said this mod should be used in a 2 or 3x rescaled system to balance it out.

I know it (at least in the "performance")...

Up to now, I personally praised BD mod for the pretty accurate "looks" of the parts...
... but aside the "hype" for a 6.25m tank never done before, and then putting as needed "more mods" to balance the pack, why do not go for "tweakscale" for those willing (personal opinion, questionable as always) such big tank, that is going (also, my opinion) to ruin the ROCKET proportion (it seems assumed that the third stage it will be at 3.75m) just for the sake of:
- a 2.5m CSM?? (Then upscale the Sarnus I too... it needs just a couple of numbers in the cfg and keep the proportion)
- to just put those NOT playing with Hangar Extension (a mod a lot of time not upgraded) in difficoulty???
- just a MORE overkilling big tank/engines for those that play at Stock proportion?

... after the death of OLDD Saturn V (and personally, the never used FASA one, as 5m tanks seemed too slim to be in proportion) I was hoping for a new "accurate looking" Saturn and I showed (above) how it is possible with 3.75/5.625m parts.
I'll not be in a particulary trouble:
as I pretty consistently edit the above "placeholder" parts for my game (and also, not being too bad in math) it will be easy to cfg edit here and there just to have the "right proportioned" parts from BD to fit those are not "looking good" in my placeholder (mostly just the bottom of the above placeholder first stage and the engines), as I had always trouble with Hangar Extension...

Edited August 11, 2016 by Araym

[komodo]

3 minutes ago, Jso said:

With the caveat that I still haven't actually used USI, but I do think I have it installed correctly now (thanks!). Stick to convention. It appears USI does not add supplies to pods, and there's a 15 day grace period, so should supplies really be in the pods? We might be able to do something with B9PartSwitch to make the supply pods switchable between fuel and life support supplies. I don't know that they should carry both.

All valid points. It boils down to pragmatism, I suppose; if we stick straight to the USI 'stock' conventions, then the only thing really we need to do are the supply capsules and the station parts providing habitation bonuses.

The question then becomes, (and i've never figured this one out to be honest) should the grace period be just that, insurance, or should it be a baseline to work off of, and *then* consider capacity? This honestly is the thing that bugs me the most about this system. It is treated as a baseline, but then always referred to as a grace period. 

Totally agree on fuel vs supplies via a switch. Is that only the gemini/'progress'? The others are just KIS boxes, I think. (I've also never figured out if you can stick containers in a KIS inventory and alt-click transfer them into a different container.) Do we ship anything like B9PartSwitch? FSPartSwitch?

These are the sorts of things I don't know the best way to proceed on, but I also know 100% that a lot of balancing/redirection needs to take place. I appreciate the feedback, and i'm also not too proud to back some/half/most/all of the changes out if they don't make sense.

[Jso]

9 minutes ago, komodo said:

Totally agree on fuel vs supplies via a switch. Is that only the gemini/'progress'? The others are just KIS boxes, I think. (I've also never figured out if you can stick containers in a KIS inventory and alt-click transfer them into a different container.) Do we ship anything like B9PartSwitch? FSPartSwitch?

No clue about KIS. B9PartSwitch is on the radar. It's already used for the cryo fuel switching and I'd like to make a standalone patch for that. Even absent life support, I could see using it for a switchable MP/LFO supply pod.

[Wahgineer]

@Araym, actually, there is a stock system that would allow us to use a 6.25m Sarmus V and it's derivatives without worrying about the FAN's limits: sub-assemblies. We can build our payloads, then attach the rocket to it. Ksp auto-raises rockets on loading if they stock below the GAB floor.

 

[CobaltWolf]

#SaturnV

[StarStreak2109]

11 hours ago, awsumindyman said:

@Araym, this whole mod is overkill. Heck, even Cobalt said this mod should be used in a 2 or 3x rescaled system to balance it out.

Yupp, that's right, but in that regard it is very much like Tantares. For instance, if I use Tantares' Proton with a sensible payload on top, I can get into orbit on the first stage (sometimes needing the second stage for final orbit adjustments). That is outright silly. Using KScale2, you need all three stages - even though the third stage will in most cases only be needed for final orbit adjustments...

One rocket from this pack, which IMHO really is overpowered, even in 2x scale game, is the Atlas V, which has an first stage ISP of IIRC 316. I reduced mine to 280-300, to be in line with other first stage engines. This makes it a bit more challenging and requires more planning regarding a Centaur upper stage. But I have yet to find a payload for myself which would require an Atlas 551 arrangement....

[Rory Yammomoto]

Whatever. We already have 2 'proprietary' sizes, ,9375 and 1,5 (though 1,5 should become a standard in itself) what is the harm in making another? All I can see is adding another tab to the 'sizes' sort.

Edited August 12, 2016 by Rory Yammomoto

[CobaltWolf]

To add more fuel to the fire, our (meaning me, @Jso, and @VenomousRequiem) current concerns / things that have been brought up and need to be answered:

• Accuracy - truly accurate scaling would mean a 4.25m S-IVB, which isn't even a 0.625m size. But, we've tried really hard to keep everything accurate and balanced relative to their real world counterparts, and each other. Making it less accurate (generally, smaller) means it will perform worse, possibly to the point that when running a proper rescale to make things closer to their IRL performance, the SV might not be able to actually carry out an Apollo flight.
• Balance - As Jso has pointed out to me, a 5.625m Saturn V has HALF the LFO of a 6.25m Saturn V. In his words, 'changes in diameter in this scale are non-trivial'. Changing the fuel then changes the engine balance, etc. The F1s/J2s would then risk over/underperforming, etc.
• Size - @Araym showed that the 5.625m Saturn V just BARELY fits into the VAB. I would rather not force players to use subassemblies or something to properly assemble a Saturn V. Or rather, I don't want to make things too complicated for the player.
• Time - Doing Saturn with a 4.25m upper stage means having to redo all the Saturn 1 parts - no, this is not a simple config edit to rescale them. It also means rethinking plans for the Atlas CELV and the LDC Titan.
• Cryogenics - another part of the issue is that the second and third stages of the IRL Saturn are far lighter than their KSP equivalents. The fuel is far less dense, and the dry mass of the tanks is also lighter. That means more weight that has to get pushed by those F1s and J2s.
• Skylab - We have some concern that the geometry of Skylab (re: the launch configuration, and the deployment of the ATM) might not work out if we don't scale it accurately.

Honestly, keep up the discussion everyone. I am actually taking a break from moving out of my apartment right now. Hopefully y'all can come to a consensus on how to do this.

[Rory Yammomoto]

562 cm is still sort of easy to write.... I would prefer a small redution to a nice round number...

Edited August 12, 2016 by Rory Yammomoto

[Wahgineer]

It may be best to sacrifice accuracy for compatibility: If people really want to, they'll tinker with the Sarnus V to make it work. It's best just to make it 6.25m, since then you won't have to redo EVERYTHING in the mod to make it work. Besides, more fuel is better, and it.might help the rocket to behave more realistically.

[Wahgineer]

Actually, why not just make the SIV-B taller?

[Jso]

1 hour ago, CobaltWolf said:

5.625m Saturn V has HALF the LFO of a 6.25m

It's actually 3/4ths of 6.5m. Too many numbers getting tossed around. 5.625 vs 6.25 vs 6.5 vs 10.1

Edit: Forgot to scale the height. It's about half of 6.5 though, not 6.25. Too many numbers... :-)

Edited August 12, 2016 by Jso

[Guest]

Another consideration about the Saturn V's size: there are those of us prone to fits of madness that will result in the building of a Saturn MLV or even a Nova or two. A bit of headroom left over in the VAB would be appreciated.

[einstein72]

Is there any current support or planned support for Real Fuels? I did my best to search through the thread, but I couldn't find an answer