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

[Skyrunner84]

I am thinking about installing RemoteTech in my next 3.2X career. Are the BDB RT configs balanced for 3.2X like the rest of the parts are? By the way I am using Realistic Rescale as my 3.2X system. 

[Kablob]

2 hours ago, Skyrunner84 said:

I am thinking about installing RemoteTech in my next 3.2X career. Are the BDB RT configs balanced for 3.2X like the rest of the parts are? By the way I am using Realistic Rescale as my 3.2X system. 

BDB is balanced for 2.5x, not 3.2x.

[Saltshaker]

34 minutes ago, Kablob said:

BDB is balanced for 2.5x, not 3.2x.

A mod named SMURFF balances KSP fuel mass fractions for stock and modded (i.e BDB) tanks, which helps out a lot in 2.5x and beyond.

[Jso]

7 hours ago, Skyrunner84 said:

I am thinking about installing RemoteTech in my next 3.2X career. Are the BDB RT configs balanced for 3.2X like the rest of the parts are? By the way I am using Realistic Rescale as my 3.2X system. 

RemoteTech came up a few pages back. You may have issues with inappropriate ranges on the deep space stuff.

We balance for stock, and Sigma will adjust stock antennas in a rescale. I'm not sure what happens with RT antennas.

[schoff123]

On 8/13/2018 at 8:34 AM, CobaltWolf said:

(I don't know why you cut part of your post, forums aren't instant messaging, you can reply to older stuff )

I had to go dig up our old conversation about the dimensions for the MX stages. Good news is, I threw them together in Maya and they seemed to be scaled properly. Bad news is, I can't find anything on how the nozzle extensions worked You mentioned 3 actuators, and I was able to identify them in photos from the Nuclear Museum but they don't appear to interface with the non-extending part of the nozzle. (Twitter link has an image in the third tweet or so from that series)

 

Related, but I am struggling to understand how the actuators for these solid engines work. Near as I can tell it's just some linear actuators jammed up inside the mate between the embedded nozzle and the casing, but that doesn't make much sense to me - it's not like they're pushing against the nozzle with any sort of leverage. I'm sort of in a holding pattern for detailing the nozzles on the 1.5m solids as a result, in addition to what I asked about above. One issue I'm noticing with these revamps is I am spending a lot of time doing research, collecting photo references, etc because I really, really, really don't want to have to remodel all this stuff again. I want it to be right the first time So, if I don't have an answer or solution to something, I will err on the side of collecting more information before I commit.

EDIT: I have been informed that all the MX-Peacekeeper stages use Liquid Injection TVC, but that doesn't answer the question for the Castor 30/30XL and the STAR-37FV and STAR-48BV, which use some sort of hydraulic actuators.

I suppose the Burner 2 equipment could be a 'strap on' part, but it wouldn't look as nice (I couldn't bake the AO shadows in if I did that) and would be fairly single use I'd think, or at least, difficult to make useable in other configurations.

I suppose thrust vectoring would be possible, but in that case I think I would combine them. Either have the existing STAR motors with minimum hardware (ie just the actuators, not the boxes and cabling and such on the real 'V' models) but with wiggleable nozzles... or, I don't know what else.

Will have to make a pt 2 post this afternoon since I had some more things to share, but for now see how the Athena-II is taking shape. I think I've settled on the Castor 30 version being the one represented in BDB, since the Orbus 21 will have to be for IUS and I don't feel the part would be able to fill both roles. This image also illustrates a bit how overscaled Scout is in BDB to fit within stock sizes...

With these types of solid rocket motors, the nozzle and aft closure are partially submerged into the motor case. You are correct that there is thrust vector control thanks to hydraulic actuators, but the nozzle throat assembly allows that to happen:

 

The flexible portion is a series of vulcanized rubber and metal shims, and the nozzle entrance is typically a series of pieces, as pictured. Since the nozzle is not rigidly attached to the motor case, the actuators attached to the bell can vector it. The SRB's used a very similar setup, but also had a supporting oil bladder for sealing. The actuators themselves are usually attached to the aft motor section or thrust skirt to provide leverage during control. I highly suggest reading through Sutton's Rocket Propulsion Elements, Chapters 12 and 13 (8th Ed.) for a great overview and illustration of solid systems.

EDIT: For nozzle extensions, any linear actuators would be anchored to the the bottom of the case and the specific nozzle section. locking tabs were sometimes used to secure the section once extended. There were sealing features involved, like carbon fiber ropes and stuff like that (think of fiber stove rope around a pellet or wood stove, for example).

Edited August 17, 2018 by schoff123

[CobaltWolf]

50 minutes ago, schoff123 said:

With these types of solid rocket motors, the nozzle and aft closure are partially submerged into the motor case. You are correct that there is thrust vector control thanks to hydraulic actuators, but the nozzle throat assembly allows that to happen:

 

The flexible portion is a series of vulcanized rubber and metal shims, and the nozzle entrance is typically a series of pieces, as pictured. Since the nozzle is not rigidly attached to the motor case, the actuators attached to the bell can vector it. The SRB's used a very similar setup, but also had a supporting oil bladder for sealing. The actuators themselves are usually attached to the aft motor section or thrust skirt to provide leverage during control. I highly suggest reading through Sutton's Rocket Propulsion Elements, Chapters 12 and 13 (8th Ed.) for a great overview and illustration of solid systems.

EDIT: For nozzle extensions, any linear actuators would be anchored to the the bottom of the case and the specific nozzle section. locking tabs were sometimes used to secure the section once extended. There were sealing features involved, like carbon fiber ropes and stuff like that (think of fiber stove rope around a pellet or wood stove, for example).

Thank you, that is very helpful! However, I am still puzzled by the Castor 30 which uses a different method of actuation than the STAR 48 and 37 that @Pappystein posted. While those work pretty much as you expect - they are perpendicular to the nozzle, with one end fixed to a stirrup and the other fixed to the engine bell. However on the Castor 30, you can see the actuator below the nozzle in this image, it almost appears to be jammed in the space where 'Flexible Joint' is written on your diagram. Also note that it appears that one end of the linear actuator appears to be more or less floating and not connected to anything other than a cable.

Strangely enough, I was able to find who makes the actuators for this specific model of engine. Didn't tell me a whole lot though.

[Pappystein]

2 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Thank you, that is very helpful! However, I am still puzzled by the Castor 30 which uses a different method of actuation than the STAR 48 and 37 that @Pappystein posted. While those work pretty much as you expect - they are perpendicular to the nozzle, with one end fixed to a stirrup and the other fixed to the engine bell. However on the Castor 30, you can see the actuator below the nozzle in this image, it almost appears to be jammed in the space where 'Flexible Joint' is written on your diagram. Also note that it appears that one end of the linear actuator appears to be more or less floating and not connected to anything other than a cable.

 

Strangely enough, I was able to find who makes the actuators for this specific model of engine. Didn't tell me a whole lot though.

That part is easy for me to describe.   What you are seeing is the Tail end of the Actuator.  The Attachment points are actually close together up at the start of the bell.  One side is on the thrust structure and the other is on the bell just above/below the thrust structure and continues on to the part you can see.   Actuators are rarely end to end attachment in aircraft or rockets.   Often times they are End to middle or end to SAME end.

Edited August 17, 2018 by Pappystein
deleted pic

[Pappystein]

Well I found plenty of pictures of mid-attachment Hydraulic actuators by searching google "Aircraft Control Actuator pictures"   But just about every one of them has a url length that is too long to paste here....  

 

The Inner portion of the Actuator (the piston stroke if you will) is always an end attachment.   However the outer body, can be attached however/wherever the body is strengthen to withstand the forces.

The Same end or Mid-end attachment schemes are used when lots of control/force are required but little movement is the result.   They are also used in EXTENSION Actuators that are small and take up little space (EG missile nozzle extension or deflection (or both!)

 

 

Edited August 17, 2018 by Pappystein

[schoff123]

2 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Thank you, that is very helpful! However, I am still puzzled by the Castor 30 which uses a different method of actuation than the STAR 48 and 37 that @Pappystein posted. While those work pretty much as you expect - they are perpendicular to the nozzle, with one end fixed to a stirrup and the other fixed to the engine bell. However on the Castor 30, you can see the actuator below the nozzle in this image, it almost appears to be jammed in the space where 'Flexible Joint' is written on your diagram. Also note that it appears that one end of the linear actuator appears to be more or less floating and not connected to anything other than a cable.

Strangely enough, I was able to find who makes the actuators for this specific model of engine. Didn't tell me a whole lot though.

MOOG in upstate NY makes pretty much any rocket actuator for the US rocket industry - military and civilian. Historically, many liquid and solid systems used hydraulic or fueldraulic actuators to provide TVC, but electromechnical (EM) actuators are on the rise to replace them because of newly decreased cost and overall simplicity. I now MOOG makes them and I found an article saying the Castor-30 has EM TVC from MOOG:

http://www.moog.com/news/operating-group-news/2016/electromechanical-actuation-system-supports-successful-u-s-air-force-orbital-atk-medium-class-stage-iii-static-fire-test/

 However, I don't understand the nuances of EM TVC and haven't really had exposure to EM TVC systems. Either way, the Castor-30 above has EM TVC, not hydraulic!

29 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

That part is easy for me to describe.   What you are seeing is the Tail end of the Actuator.  The Attachment points are actually close together up at the start of the bell.  One side is on the thrust structure and the other is on the bell just above/below the thrust structure and continues on to the part you can see.   Actuators are rarely end to end attachment in aircraft or rockets.   Often times they are End to middle or end to SAME end.

Well there you have it. So its an EM TVC with end to same-end leveraging. Thats pretty cool imo

Edited August 17, 2018 by schoff123

[CobaltWolf]

@Pappystein @schoff123 alright then, I suppose I have one more question - for my purposes, they would essentially be mounted angling away from the nozzle to allow gimballing clearance, and apart from that they would be essentially a fixed, stationary part of the end cap from our perspective? ie the actuation would be buried and not visible?

[schoff123]

Just now, CobaltWolf said:

@Pappystein @schoff123 alright then, I suppose I have one more question - for my purposes, they would essentially be mounted angling away from the nozzle to allow gimballing clearance, and apart from that they would be essentially a fixed, stationary part of the end cap from our perspective? ie the actuation would be buried and not visible?

I don't think it should move, otherwise you are losing leverage when moving the nozzle. I would have it "mounted" onto the aft case, the same was it is in the ATK photo you posted. The angle should be just slight enough to provide clearance for the gimbaling in that direction. I don't see how you would need to see it move, it could be stationary and just a modeled cylinder coming out the end. I'd also image there would another one offset 90-deg CW to get 2 axis TVC

[Skyrunner84]

On 10/11/2016 at 3:34 PM, CobaltWolf said:

.

NOTE – BDB is balanced to have parts inline with stock values. This means that the rockets significantly overperform in the stock system. The alternative would be to have parts that are very underpowered compared to contemporary parts. To achieve proper balance, we recommend using a 3.2x rescale, which requires rockets to be built with more realistic

I know this post is from a long time ago but I didnt realize that the balance had been changed to 2.5x. Honestly I like the 3.2x system much better than stock (and probably more than 2.5x though I have not tried it) and I have not had too many problems getting to orbit with the early career BDB rockets. The Launch Failure mod really likes to drop fins off my rockets but i dont count that against BDB (maybe you guy should tighten up your quality control ). Anyway I will mess around with BDB in a sandbox in 3.2x to see how later rockets will work. I like the challenge.

On 10/11/2016 at 3:34 PM, CobaltWolf said:

.

NOTE – BDB is balanced to have parts inline with stock values. This means that the rockets significantly overperform in the stock system. The alternative would be to have parts that are very underpowered compared to contemporary parts. To achieve proper balance, we recommend using a 3.2x rescale, which requires rockets to be built with more realistic

I know this post is from a long time ago but I didnt realize that the balance had been changed to 2.5x. Honestly I like the 3.2x system much better than stock (and probably more than 2.5x though I have not tried it) and I have not had too many problems getting to orbit with the early career BDB rockets. The Launch Failure mod really likes to drop fins off my rockets but i dont count that against BDB (maybe you guy should tighten up your quality control ). Anyway I will mess around with BDB in a sandbox in 3.2x to see how later rockets will work. I like the challenge.

On 10/11/2016 at 3:34 PM, CobaltWolf said:

.

NOTE – BDB is balanced to have parts inline with stock values. This means that the rockets significantly overperform in the stock system. The alternative would be to have parts that are very underpowered compared to contemporary parts. To achieve proper balance, we recommend using a 3.2x rescale, which requires rockets to be built with more realistic

I know this post is from a long time ago but I didnt realize that the balance had been changed to 2.5x. Honestly I like the 3.2x system much better than stock (and probably more than 2.5x though I have not tried it) and I have not had too many problems getting to orbit with the early career BDB rockets. The Launch Failure mod really likes to drop fins off my rockets but i dont count that against BDB (maybe you guy should tighten up your quality control ). Anyway I will mess around with BDB in a sandbox in 3.2x to see how later rockets will work. I like the challenge.

On 10/11/2016 at 3:34 PM, CobaltWolf said:

.

NOTE – BDB is balanced to have parts inline with stock values. This means that the rockets significantly overperform in the stock system. The alternative would be to have parts that are very underpowered compared to contemporary parts. To achieve proper balance, we recommend using a 3.2x rescale, which requires rockets to be built with more realistic

I know this post is from a long time ago but I didnt realize that the balance had been changed to 2.5x. Honestly I like the 3.2x system much better than stock (and probably more than 2.5x though I have not tried it) and I have not had too many problems getting to orbit with the early career BDB rockets. The Launch Failure mod really likes to drop fins off my rockets but i dont count that against BDB (maybe you guy should tighten up your quality control ). Anyway I will mess around with BDB in a sandbox in 3.2x to see how later rockets will work. I like the challenge.

[Jso]

21 minutes ago, Skyrunner84 said:

I know this post is from a long time ago but I didnt realize that the balance had been changed to 2.5x. Honestly I like the 3.2x system much better than stock (and probably more than 2.5x though I have not tried it) and I have not had too many problems getting to orbit with the early career BDB rockets. The Launch Failure mod really likes to drop fins off my rockets but i dont count that against BDB (maybe you guy should tighten up your quality control ). Anyway I will mess around with BDB in a sandbox in 3.2x to see how later rockets will work. I like the challenge.

Nothing changed. We still balance against stock. So you should be fine in 3.2x, you'll just have a lower payload to orbit than in 2.5x.

[Skyrunner84]

Sorry for the repeated post. Apparently this site does not like to play well with my phone.

[Cheesecake]

Does anyone have some working configs for made the Daleth-Fairingadapter and the Muo Fairingbase (AtlasV) compatible with Procedural Fairings? @Jso configs didn`t work well with the latest BDB.

[Norcalplanner]

18 hours ago, Jso said:

Nothing changed. We still balance against stock. So you should be fine in 3.2x, you'll just have a lower payload to orbit than in 2.5x.

An experienced player will be fine in either scale, particularly in a modded install.  Delta V requirements for 2.5x scale are approx. 1.58x of stock, while 3.2x scale is around 1.79x the stock Delta V.

Edited August 18, 2018 by Norcalplanner
Typo

[Jso]

3 hours ago, Cheesecake said:

Does anyone have some working configs for made the Daleth-Fairingadapter and the Muo Fairingbase (AtlasV) compatible with Procedural Fairings? @Jso configs didn`t work well with the latest BDB.

It's up. Forgot to update the release.

[Cheesecake]

1 hour ago, Jso said:

It's up. Forgot to update the release.

That was fast.

[Pappystein]

@CobaltWolf

For followup RE MX Missile actuators.    The ones in the two pictures you provided, clearly pivot on the 3rd Bell segment and thus start wide and end up parallel to the bell.   The Actuator would not fit in the area if it was FIXED, and in this case, would not be able to extend the bell if Fixed at the locations provided.

For a Straight Thrust vectoring Actuator I would say they were fixed but extending ones will need to pivot at 2 or more points (the MX missile has 2 points of pivoting for example....  The Engine casing and the 3rd segment attachment points.)

 

[Kardea]

On 8/17/2018 at 8:11 PM, Jso said:

Nothing changed. We still balance against stock. So you should be fine in 3.2x, you'll just have a lower payload to orbit than in 2.5x.

I admit I'm a bit confused... I'm playing the game on bone stock (system scaling-wise.. I'm using Outer Planets, too) and BDB rockets seem pretty balanced against the normal system... The earliest rockets (Viklun, Etoh, etc) seem to have exactly the DV you'd expect for early low-Earth-orbit rockets... ~4-5K DV, depending on the rocket. 2.5x scale would mean they wouldn't even make it to orbit.  Am I missing something?

[dbandy13]

1 hour ago, Kardea said:

I admit I'm a bit confused... I'm playing the game on bone stock (system scaling-wise.. I'm using Outer Planets, too) and BDB rockets seem pretty balanced against the normal system... The earliest rockets (Viklun, Etoh, etc) seem to have exactly the DV you'd expect for early low-Earth-orbit rockets... ~4-5K DV, depending on the rocket. 2.5x scale would mean they wouldn't even make it to orbit.  Am I missing something?

You have to remember that payload affects that delta v, basically the bdb rockets have less payload in a 2.5x system. They should be closer to RL equivilents in 2.5x

eg in stock ksp the Saturn 1B can easily lift a fully loaded block II Apollo csm. In both RL and 2.5x you need to actually lighten the SMs fuel load in order to make it. I can’t remember the values exactly but I think it’s from about 25t down to 18ish

[CobaltWolf]

8 hours ago, Kardea said:

I admit I'm a bit confused... I'm playing the game on bone stock (system scaling-wise.. I'm using Outer Planets, too) and BDB rockets seem pretty balanced against the normal system... The earliest rockets (Viklun, Etoh, etc) seem to have exactly the DV you'd expect for early low-Earth-orbit rockets... ~4-5K DV, depending on the rocket. 2.5x scale would mean they wouldn't even make it to orbit.  Am I missing something?

6 hours ago, dbandy13 said:

You have to remember that payload affects that delta v, basically the bdb rockets have less payload in a 2.5x system. They should be closer to RL equivilents in 2.5x

eg in stock ksp the Saturn 1B can easily lift a fully loaded block II Apollo csm. In both RL and 2.5x you need to actually lighten the SMs fuel load in order to make it. I can’t remember the values exactly but I think it’s from about 25t down to 18ish

If I remember (I don't do much of the balancing for the mod) it's about 5.5K dV that you need for orbit in 2.5x. Early rockets I think are maybe a little underpowered because their payloads were very small and hard to recreate in KSP. The Saturn V in the stock system has way too much dV.

 

On 8/17/2018 at 3:53 PM, schoff123 said:

I don't think it should move, otherwise you are losing leverage when moving the nozzle. I would have it "mounted" onto the aft case, the same was it is in the ATK photo you posted. The angle should be just slight enough to provide clearance for the gimbaling in that direction. I don't see how you would need to see it move, it could be stationary and just a modeled cylinder coming out the end. I'd also image there would another one offset 90-deg CW to get 2 axis TVC

I think I understand - the actuator can be mounted towards the bottom since that won't change the angle the linear pressure is being applied to the nozzle from. There will be at least two, yes - I had experimented with 4 so there was more symmetry but I don't know if I'll keep it.

 

19 hours ago, Pappystein said:

@CobaltWolf

For followup RE MX Missile actuators.    The ones in the two pictures you provided, clearly pivot on the 3rd Bell segment and thus start wide and end up parallel to the bell.   The Actuator would not fit in the area if it was FIXED, and in this case, would not be able to extend the bell if Fixed at the locations provided.

For a Straight Thrust vectoring Actuator I would say they were fixed but extending ones will need to pivot at 2 or more points (the MX missile has 2 points of pivoting for example....  The Engine casing and the 3rd segment attachment points.)

The weird thing about the extension actuators on the pictures from the Nuclear Museum is it doesn't seem like the hinge on the 3rd section can slide up and down the rod - maybe I'm misunderstanding it and there is a smaller-diameter rod inside that it pushes on? That would be neat looking in game to watch extend...

 

Perhaps this drawing will help? The Engine Nozzle Extension.... uh, C-something (ENEC) Actuator is clearly called out above the 3rd stage, and it appears the Nozzle Thrust Vector Actuator is called out below it.

 

Edited August 20, 2018 by CobaltWolf

[CobaltWolf]

But, let's stop talking about MX for now, since I was able to get some work done this weekend on the Scout stuff, and started to clean it up and get it pushed in game. There was a lot of little fidgety stuff that had to get done - the end caps for the solids, for example - and so it took a good bit of work. I don't have anything in game yet (well, Algol and Castor inlines are but I didn't start up the game to test them yet) but we're getting there. Here's some update screenshots:

STAR-31 "Antares" 0.625m Solid Rocket Motor - Scout 3rd stage, Redstone-Sparta 2nd stage, a bit more powerful than a traditional vacuum solid since it's where most of your circularization dV comes from. Left is the 'advanced' Antares for Scout, which has 3-axis RCS control (including for spinning up the 4th stage) in the non-jettisoning shroud around the nozzle. In the middle is the 'basic' Antares (yes I am including two versions, I hope people aren't mad, I wanted a version where you could see the nozzle) with its autoshroud, and on the right is it in flight with the shroud jettisoned.

Here's the bell for the new Castor-IV radial solid (the radial version of the Scout Castor since 0.625m is too big for Castor 1/2). Apologies if the recurring reddish bells bothers anyone, there isn't texture space for other colors and I wanted the Algol throat to be that color. I might desaturate it a bit.

A quick Maya screenshot to show something I was messing around with - Castor IV-XL, Castor-IV (the radial that is already in game), Castor-1/Castor-2 (could replace that weird orange SRB with this if everyone is ok with that, issue being... well, it looks identical to the Castor-IV and so can't be told apart in the VAB part list), and then the inline version with the non-jettisoning shroud and 3-way RCS control. Note that the radial versions don't have the spiral stripe thanks to some UV trickery

Lastly, a quick look at the emissive for the inline Algol first stage. I'm hoping to get the thrust vanes to actually function thanks to some improvements in the stock modules over the years The radial Algol will use a modified version of the Castor nozzle.

Edited August 20, 2018 by CobaltWolf

[Jso]

11 hours ago, Kardea said:

I admit I'm a bit confused... I'm playing the game on bone stock (system scaling-wise.. I'm using Outer Planets, too) and BDB rockets seem pretty balanced against the normal system... The earliest rockets (Viklun, Etoh, etc) seem to have exactly the DV you'd expect for early low-Earth-orbit rockets... ~4-5K DV, depending on the rocket. 2.5x scale would mean they wouldn't even make it to orbit.  Am I missing something?

We take a little dry mass off the parts in rescales to help out. The bigger the rescale the more we take off. So the same build will be lighter in 3.2x vs 1x.

[Kerbal01]

9 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

<snips out all this SRB goodness>

Kreygasm. Can't wait to use this (once Rescale! finally updates for 1.4).