Jump to content

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

CobaltWolf

By CobaltWolf
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

komodo

komodo

Posted
Posted (edited)

As it appears to be picture time, this is handy. (I was going to post these anyway :P )

(These shots are from a 3.2x rescaled system.)

Just some Gemini ("TwinRider) things as that's where my career has gotten to thus far.

First, I heard you made a Gemini lander. Well.... I did this. Minmus here we come. (Like, right now. I'm alt-tabbing back to the TMI after I hit submit!)wnVGBED.png

 

Second, we have a little station that has been fun to put together. (Well. The current station was launched in one shot... you get the idea.)

jWpUGyi.pngCg5CX1I.png

The docking ports are probably the interesting part here: The lower one is attached to the back of the unpressurized module, intended to receive supplies from cargo pods, mostly snacks in this case. Pictured docked is a SnackRider+ capsule/SM. The upper Docking port is clipped into the side of the airlock. The 'idea' here is that it is a short EVA from the docked pod into the airlock.

The airlock itself is mounted to one of the 1.875 m docking rings. When the next station module is launched (a 5 way hub; It wasn't unlocked when this guy launched), the cargo tug will dock to the airlock, decouple it and reenter to burn up after the new hub/airlock is installed.

Finally, we have this thing: The TwinRider M. The above craft were launched on a Titan 3. These are is pricey, even if the first two stages are recovered by parachute. So, for the low low price of only 15416 spesos, we have this budget model for going to space in a very safe and responsible fashion. (The capsule is equipped with seats, seat belts, a hatch, and ejector seats if the previous options are suddenly non-viable.)K4ZgzBM.png

This is a four stage solid launcher ("Paxus", I think it is) which is actually pretty nice to fly. The total dV of the booster is ~5800 m/s, with 405 m/s for the capsule. The launch profile is a little odd due to minor stability issues: It needs a pretty high loft off of the first stage to get into thin air quickly. If a turn is started too quickly, it has a slight tendency to tumble which is bad if going to space is the plan. It actually has a bit too much dV for going to the station, leading to some interesting terminal burns. (Aim straight down, S-turn to try to match inclination, just anything but forward.) The Leo service module is the short model with some extra batteries clipped in, and has quite limited dV compared with the (admittedly OP) full size SM. It is best launched just before the station is going to come into line of sight over the horizon.

Andddd that's what I got thus far!

Val and Bill seem stuck in perma-JawDrop. They may also be sweating about the razor thin margins for return. One or the other.

wcj3MNr.png

... That the snack containers perfectly fit a kerbal helmet is a total coincidence. >_>

ZgOv2IH.png

Edited by komodo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kerbex

Kerbex

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hi, on BDB 1.4.4 KSP 1.6.1 with just the dependencies for BDB (latest dependencies), I get null reference exceptions: 

[ERR 04:47:43.046] Cannot find fx group of that name for decoupler

[ERR 04:47:43.158] Module ModuleRCSFX threw during OnStart: System.NullReferenceException: 
  at (wrapper managed-to-native) UnityEngine.Component:get_gameObject ()
  at AudioMultiFX.CreateSource (UnityEngine.Transform transform) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at AudioMultiFX.Play (Single power, Int32 transformIdx) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at AudioMultiFX.OnEvent (Single power, Int32 transformIdx) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at EffectList.Event (System.String eventName, Single power, Int32 transformIdx) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at Part.Effect (System.String effectName, Single effectPower, Int32 transformIdx) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at ModuleRCSFX.SetupFX () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at ModuleRCS.OnStart (StartState state) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at Part.ModulesOnStart () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0


Also when the saturn v is unloaded:
  

[LOG 04:48:23.766] [ApplicationLauncher] SetVisible: 
[EXC 04:48:40.531] NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
	PartModule.get_HasAdjusters ()
	PartModule.Save (.ConfigNode node)
	ProtoPartModuleSnapshot..ctor (.PartModule module)
	ProtoPartSnapshot..ctor (.Part PartRef, .ProtoVessel protoVessel)
	ProtoVessel..ctor (.Vessel VesselRef)
	Vessel.BackupVessel ()
	FlightState..ctor ()
	Game.Updated (GameScenes startSceneOverride)
	GamePersistence.SaveGame (System.String saveFileName, System.String saveFolder, SaveMode saveMode, GameScenes startScene)
	GamePersistence.SaveGame (System.String saveFileName, System.String saveFolder, SaveMode saveMode)
	FlightAutoSave+<PersistentSave>c__Iterator0.MoveNext ()
	UnityEngine.SetupCoroutine.InvokeMoveNext (IEnumerator enumerator, IntPtr returnValueAddress)
[LOG 04:49:13.541] [PlanetariumCamera]: Focus: Kerbin
[LOG 04:49:13.553] Maneuver Mode enabled
[LOG 04:49:13.553] [ApplicationLauncher] SetHidden: 
[LOG 04:49:15.056] Packing Saturn V Lander for orbit
[LOG 04:49:15.889] Saturn V Unloaded
[EXC 04:49:15.890] NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
	PartModule.get_HasAdjusters ()
	PartModule.Save (.ConfigNode node)
	ProtoPartModuleSnapshot..ctor (.PartModule module)
	ProtoPartSnapshot..ctor (.Part PartRef, .ProtoVessel protoVessel)
	ProtoVessel..ctor (.Vessel VesselRef)
	Vessel.Unload ()
	Vessel.Update ()


Once this happens I cannot revert the mission, go to tracking station, space center, quit to main menu, neither can I do a quick save.

Edited by Kerbex
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abrecan

Abrecan

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, komodo said:

pack extra dV....

I managed to put about 3100 m/s in the mini lander, with about 1 day of battery life and food. Considering the mission would be short lived on the surface this seems okay imo. Main problem is keeping the EC up... The gemini fuel cell is very weak and will need a replacement...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pappystein

Pappystein

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Abrecan said:

I managed to put about 3100 m/s in the mini lander, with about 1 day of battery life and food. Considering the mission would be short lived on the surface this seems okay imo. Main problem is keeping the EC up... The gemini fuel cell is very weak and will need a replacement...

Um... If you are feeling non-traditional, scrag the Fuel cell and put a RLA-Reborn RTG on it....

Otherwise there IS room on the sides as others have done with folding Solar Panels.   I actually Like Both the Small BDB tracking panels from the OGO series or the nice Trackers from Probes! Plus

6 hours ago, Kerbex said:

Hi, on BDB 1.4.4 KSP 1.6.1 with just the dependencies for BDB (latest dependencies), I get null reference exceptions

 

I think it has already been mentioned just one or two pages back that for 1.6.1 you need to download the MASTER file from the Github and not the Release file from the main page / Spacedock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MaverickSawyer

MaverickSawyer

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Pappystein said:

Um... If you are feeling non-traditional, scrag the Fuel cell and put a RLA-Reborn RTG on it....

Otherwise there IS room on the sides as others have done with folding Solar Panels.   I actually Like Both the Small BDB tracking panels from the OGO series or the nice Trackers from Probes! Plus.

Yep, the OGO panels are fantastic, although I've historically used the Lunar Orbiter deployable (but non-tracking) panels arranged in the rear of the SM and deploying outwards. They do provide power only at certain parts of the orbit, but it's more than enough to keep the batteries topped off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abpilot

Abpilot

Posted
Posted
On 1/14/2019 at 6:34 AM, CobaltWolf said:

Speaking of, er, Delta(c)... the Delta 2 update is finally finished! We're getting close to release, please anyone that has time check out the current Github master and try to help spot issues so fixes can be included. :)

BXKG1Y3.pngA8q6rQ2.pngxdaICwj.pnglRlaw2L.pngZMItJYV.png0AUVv2s.png

launch towers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pappystein

Pappystein

Posted
Posted
Just now, Abpilot said:

reallly...those ones? i already hav them :I

I believe.... and I am NOT CERTAIN on this.  That CobaltWolf has a few extras that have not been released yet by AlphaMensae...   as they are not fully ready/functional or some such.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abpilot

Abpilot

Posted
Posted
Just now, Pappystein said:

I believe.... and I am NOT CERTAIN on this.  That CobaltWolf has a few extras that have not been released yet by AlphaMensae...   as they are not fully ready/functional or some such.

 

right thx :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CobaltWolf

CobaltWolf

Posted
  • Author
Posted
9 hours ago, Abpilot said:

launch towers?

8 hours ago, Pappystein said:

Um,. 4 Posts Below the one you responded to.

AKA

7 hours ago, Abpilot said:

reallly...those ones? i already hav them :I

7 hours ago, Pappystein said:

I believe.... and I am NOT CERTAIN on this.  That CobaltWolf has a few extras that have not been released yet by AlphaMensae...   as they are not fully ready/functional or some such.

7 hours ago, Abpilot said:

right thx :)

I believe that pad is actually from @damonvv's unfinished Tundra Space Center, but the same thing applies - he sent me some preview stuff to use for screenshots for this release. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
komodo

komodo

Posted
Posted

Broad question to anyone playing rescale (~3.2x): Convince me that Titan isn't the best launcher series for almost anything? I'm not sure if it's me or not, but it has given me the best bang/buck of the rockets i've tried thus far. I launch very few Atlas based launchers, and struggle to find a payload that the Delta type launcher (which looks friggin' awesome) is suited for. The Titan III also outclasses the Saturn I, which is unlocked approximately the same time.

I don't know if this is an artifact of the system scaling, a implicit bias on my part, or what. If it's the former, it can go into the input for future balancing, and if it's me, I would like to widen my horizons :) Thanks all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pappystein

Pappystein

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Kerbal01 said:

I nominate the Thor to be next for a refresh. That and the other lengths of delta tanks, not just the 6 and 7000 series. 

Next Refresh has already been started, it is the Titan Refresh.... the one you yourself requested about 6-8 months ago.  I do believe you requested several changes for Titan back then... Including parts for the Titan 34D and others....

Personally I can't wait for the Titan update....  But I will, If I have to, I guess.  

3 hours ago, komodo said:

Broad question to anyone playing rescale (~3.2x): Convince me that Titan isn't the best launcher series for almost anything? I'm not sure if it's me or not, but it has given me the best bang/buck of the rockets i've tried thus far. I launch very few Atlas based launchers, and struggle to find a payload that the Delta type launcher (which looks friggin' awesome) is suited for. The Titan III also outclasses the Saturn I, which is unlocked approximately the same time.

I don't know if this is an artifact of the system scaling, a implicit bias on my part, or what. If it's the former, it can go into the input for future balancing, and if it's me, I would like to widen my horizons :) Thanks all!

 

Part of what you are seeing is the Scaling effect.   Also Most of the parts for Atlas seem to be more 2.5x scale while the Titan SRMs are decidedly in the 3.2x scale.  I just realized that each and every one of those parts has been heavily handled since I flew 2.5x so do NOT take my word for that!

   Lastly you have to be VERY precise when staging the 1/2 stage for Atlas in 3.2.    I had problems with Atlas and EELT Thor in my 2.5x scale play-through.   If I didn't fly them PERFECTLY I didn't orbit.   And Since Mechjeb does not understand 1-1/2 staging.....

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Pappystein
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jso

Jso

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, komodo said:

Titan...best bang/buck...

It used to be much better - or worse depending on how you look at it.

https://github.com/CobaltWolf/Bluedog-Design-Bureau/issues/300

Titan III is a very simple design with 2 big srb's. From a pure cost point of view it's all business.

Solids don't require expensive engines.

Complexity such as decouplers, fins, retros, ullage motors, instrument units, and especially rcs thrusters cost $. The mini decoupler was added specifically to address the high cost of 9x radial decouplers.

Cryogenic stages are the most expensive by weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CobaltWolf

CobaltWolf

Posted
  • Author
Posted
15 hours ago, Kerbal01 said:

I nominate the Thor to be next for a refresh. That and the other lengths of delta tanks, not just the 6 and 7000 series. 

8 hours ago, Pappystein said:

Next Refresh has already been started, it is the Titan Refresh.... the one you yourself requested about 6-8 months ago.  I do believe you requested several changes for Titan back then... Including parts for the Titan 34D and others....

Personally I can't wait for the Titan update....  But I will, If I have to, I guess.

Titan refresh is already decently far along. Thor refresh, along with a refresh of Vanguard, Redstone, Juno, Able, Ablestar, and the early Delta models, is coming eventuallyTM. I actually already started pre-production on it as another time waster when I'm away from my home PC with all my active dev files. :) As a sneak peek, here's an early WIP of the Able and Ablestar engine refresh.

tajhYcj.pngj1Y99vc.png

 

 

12 hours ago, komodo said:

Broad question to anyone playing rescale (~3.2x): Convince me that Titan isn't the best launcher series for almost anything? I'm not sure if it's me or not, but it has given me the best bang/buck of the rockets i've tried thus far. I launch very few Atlas based launchers, and struggle to find a payload that the Delta type launcher (which looks friggin' awesome) is suited for. The Titan III also outclasses the Saturn I, which is unlocked approximately the same time.

I don't know if this is an artifact of the system scaling, a implicit bias on my part, or what. If it's the former, it can go into the input for future balancing, and if it's me, I would like to widen my horizons :) Thanks all!

8 hours ago, Pappystein said:

Part of what you are seeing is the Scaling effect.   Also Most of the parts for Atlas seem to be more 2.5x scale while the Titan SRMs are decidedly in the 3.2x scale.  I just realized that each and every one of those parts has been heavily handled since I flew 2.5x so do NOT take my word for that!

   Lastly you have to be VERY precise when staging the 1/2 stage for Atlas in 3.2.    I had problems with Atlas and EELT Thor in my 2.5x scale play-through.   If I didn't fly them PERFECTLY I didn't orbit.   And Since Mechjeb does not understand 1-1/2 staging.....

1 hour ago, Jso said:

It used to be much better - or worse depending on how you look at it.

https://github.com/CobaltWolf/Bluedog-Design-Bureau/issues/300

Titan III is a very simple design with 2 big srb's. From a pure cost point of view it's all business.

Solids don't require expensive engines.

Complexity such as decouplers, fins, retros, ullage motors, instrument units, and especially rcs thrusters cost $. The mini decoupler was added specifically to address the high cost of 9x radial decouplers.

Cryogenic stages are the most expensive by weight.

I don't think it's the system scaling since performance is performance. Unfortunately cost is something that can't be easily modeled in KSP. There's a lot of stuff that matters IRL that simply isn't represented in KSP, for example the point mentioned in the end of that issue's comment chain about how much the cost of the Titans would increase if their very-expensive IRL propellants were properly modelled.

Broadly speaking, I think the solution is to try and remember that in KSP, cost should increase with capability. I don't think KSP balance really supports efforts to reduce costs, which is why a Saturn 1C costs more than a Saturn 1B, etc. Solids obviously are the big exception to this, which is why Titan 3 is so good.

I think it's also important to remember that all these rockets existed in a real life context, where there's a lot more going on that affects decision making. Pure performance is typically not one of the absolute prime concerns for a rocket design, and you have to remember that many of these rockets were competing and all being allocated their own little honeypots from people who had an interest in supporting their contractors. Think also of things like the pace of development back then - In some ways it's natural that a Titan 3 surpasses a Saturn 1's performance AND cost, because they simply had another half decade of experience and technology to work with. Don't forget also that most rockets IRL didn't have the legs, on a financial efficiency basis or otherwise, to go the distance, which is why they are long-abandoned historic rockets in the first place! :)

We will always strive for interesting and enjoyable balance for the parts in BDB, but at some point it's inevitable that there are parts that are simply better than others. At the end of the day, I enjoy making this stuff and enjoy putting things together that might not always be the most efficient, but the most interesting. Since the Titan revamp is coming up, we'll have plenty of time to examine these parts and make balance changes when necessary. :)

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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...