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

[CobaltWolf]

16 hours ago, Pappystein said:

So love the new SRMs... Just did a Titan 23C-6 Gemini Flyby of the Mun with massive science grab....  However the 1.875m decoupler for the SRMs is not unlocked until the level AFTER the UA120x family.   Is this as desired?    I attempted to create a pull request for it in the Github...

Moving the node for the Decoupler from AdvancedConstruction to advRocketry

The tech tree is a complete mess right now, not just for the Titan stuff either... definitely has to be looked at before release. I'd rather the decoupler be in the construction node line but definitely need to make sure it's in the proper tier.

 

Y'all wanna see the worst photoshop I've ever made?

Edited July 8, 2019 by CobaltWolf

[Pappystein]

46 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

The tech tree is a complete mess right now, not just for the Titan stuff either... definitely has to be looked at before release. I'd rather the decoupler be in the construction node line but definitely need to make sure it's in the proper tier.

 

 

Original Titan 3X proposal!   AWESOME! 

Thanks for the heads-up.   I would love for an updated tech tree that ignores stock but fixes BDB + Tantarus + reDIRECT + maybe even SSTU.  

each and all of the mods mentioned above are top tier work and each has way too many parts to keep on the stock tech tree.    Besides the Stock Tech Tree is broken for stock as well (to many interconnects between branches.)   I have played with CTT, I have played with ETT and I have played with Yong's Tree as well as many of the Probes before Crew trees.   each of those are setup mostly to mimic stock and highlight stock as the focus of what drives the tree.   Which to me is a big no-no.       I just wish I had the time and the knowledge/skills to implement my ideas.

*Jumps off soapbox*  Err sorry for that....

 

Oh for the file on the Titan 3x

 

[Guest]

I've been thinking of something like this, but Tantares never satisfied me, quality-wise (it's getting better now... very slowly). Might include KNES (it has some design issues, but at least looks decent), though, Nertea's mod lineup for late game stuff, and Benjee10's mods for Shuttle-related things. Also, I don't want to ignore stock parts, but rather integrate them (and ReStock+) smoothly into the progression system. 

I'd imagine this approach as three primary branches: rockets, payloads and aircraft. Each would involve sub-branches sorted per company, with connections at certain points. While KSP lacks mechanics to make this really interesting as a space program development simulation, it would be somewhat realistic is that it'd allow you to commit to a certain rocket/satellite bus/aircraft family and develop it exclusively, or instead spread out and make potentially more efficient (but expensive, science-wise) multi-company projects. 

Edited July 8, 2019 by Guest

[KnedlikMCPE]

Hello,

i built etoh with slenno that is now standing on modded LC-19. Altho, my controls are locked. How can i solve this?

[CobaltWolf]

31 minutes ago, KnedlikMCPE said:

Hello,

i built etoh with slenno that is now standing on modded LC-19. Altho, my controls are locked. How can i solve this?

Does the probe give you control in any circumstances?

 

 

WIP

[Zorg]

Apollo 11 anniversary feels intensify.

[hieywiey]

I have an uncle who worked at both Martin-Marietta and Boeing sometime in the 60s, he also met Von Braun. He worked on S-IC at one point. I can ask him anything if you want.

[Pappystein]

47 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

To quote an old TV show

SHINY!

[Guest]

Nice. @CobaltWolf I sent you a PM some time ago, but I think it might be a good idea to discuss this in public.

The scaling of Saturn family in BDB has always bothered me. It sells the size of a Saturn V a bit short, and not only that, it also underscales Skylab and all related hardware. The rescale configs aren't really supported, and I can understand why. Since you're remaking the Saturn family, let's get rid of them and make it the proper size from the start.  Now, this would make Saturn V humongous, which was the main argument for underscaling it in first place. 

S-IV: 3.75m. 
Saturn C-1: 4.375m. Actually a solid intermediate size, sort of a gateway to "superscale" sizes. It also has an additional benefit, given the prevalence of 3.75m parts, it would neatly fit them inside a fairing without hammerheading.
Saturn C-4: 5m. This would fill the same role in BDB as Saturn V does today. IRL, this was little more than Saturn V sans the center engines, and with smaller diameter (S-IVB was the same). It was a little tight on the margins, so it was rejected in favor of Saturn V. Saturn C-3 used the same second stage, a 2-engine 1st stage and an S-IV.
Saturn C-5 (Saturn V): 6.25m. The success of Nertea's NFLV pack and other 5m+ mods suggests that there is room for something that big. For just Apollo, it might be oversized, but since the rescale would make the Skylab into a beast that it actually was, it might be just right for that. Well, that and interplanetary missions in rescaled systems.
Saturn C-8 (Nova): 7.5m. You may just want the 1st stage. I found Nertea's parts in this size surprisingly useful even on stock Kerbin, mostly for launching large stations in a single launch. It'd generally carry a 6.25m upper stage, but the same applies. 7.5m is nice in that it is, conveniently, 3x2.5m, so a 2.5m station with 2.5m appendages in symmetry fits into a reasonably flared fairing. 

I understand that this would be a lot of tanks, decouplers and engine mounts to make, but on the other hand, it'd make a dizzying array of options for the Saturn family (many of which, I may say, were actually proposed by someone at some point  ). Saturn was actually designed with a somewhat Kerbal mindset, with a "building blocks" approach to stages. Ideally, the engine mounts will also be highly configurable. For instance, there is a variant of Saturn I-size first stage mentioned on the Wiki that replaced the center four H-1s with an F-1 (keeping the outer ones). Or a 4x H-1 second stage. Or, for Saturn A-2, 4x Jupiter tank cluster for the 2nd stage. Dunno what they were smoking coming up with those, but those were the 60s...  

Edited July 9, 2019 by Guest

[CobaltWolf]

1 hour ago, Dragon01 said:

Nice. @CobaltWolf I sent you a PM some time ago, but I think it might be a good idea to discuss this in public.

The scaling of Saturn family in BDB has always bothered me. It sells the size of a Saturn V a bit short, and not only that, it also underscales Skylab and all related hardware. The rescale configs aren't really supported, and I can understand why. Since you're remaking the Saturn family, let's get rid of them and make it the proper size from the start.  Now, this would make Saturn V humongous, which was the main argument for underscaling it in first place. While I don't see it as a problem, 

S-IV: 3.75m. 
Saturn C-1: 4.375m. Actually a solid intermediate size, sort of a gateway to "superscale" sizes. It also has an additional benefit, given the prevalence of 3.75m parts, it would neatly fit them inside a fairing without hammerheading.
Saturn C-4: 5m. This would fill the same role in BDB as Saturn V does today. IRL, this was little more than Saturn V sans the center engines, and with smaller diameter (S-IVB was the same). It was a little tight on the margins, so it was rejected in favor of Saturn V. Saturn C-3 used the same second stage, a 2-engine 1st stage and an S-IV.
Saturn C-5 (Saturn V): 6.25m. The success of Nertea's NFLV pack and other 5m+ mods suggests that there is room for something that big. For just Apollo, it might be oversized, but since the rescale would make the Skylab into a beast that it actually was, it might be just right for that. Well, that and interplanetary missions in rescaled systems.
Saturn C-8 (Nova): 7.5m. You may just want the 1st stage. I found Nertea's parts in this size surprisingly useful even on stock Kerbin, mostly for launching large stations in a single launch. It'd generally carry a 6.25m upper stage, but the same applies. 7.5m is nice in that it is, conveniently, 3x2.5m, so a 2.5m station with 2.5m appendages in symmetry fits into a reasonably flared fairing. 

I understand that this would be a lot of tanks, decouplers and engine mounts to make, but on the other hand, it'd make a dizzying array of options for the Saturn family (many of which, I may say, were actually proposed by someone at some point  ). Saturn was actually designed with a somewhat Kerbal mindset, with a "building blocks" approach to stages. Ideally, the engine mounts will also be highly configurable. For instance, there is a variant of Saturn I-size first stage mentioned on the Wiki that replaced the center four H-1s with an F-1 (keeping the outer ones). Or a 4x H-1 second stage. Or, for Saturn A-2, 4x Jupiter tank cluster for the 2nd stage. Dunno what they were smoking coming up with those, but those were the 60s...  

I'm planning on remaking the Saturn stages at some point, and definitely giving serious consideration to using that sort of scaling. I'm more resistant to changing the 260in diameter (Saturn 1, Skylab) away from 3.75, because then that necessitates remaking Skylab to some extent, and all that is a lot of work. I definitely think I would remake the 33ft diameter parts in 6.25m though. However, that's all a lot of work and frankly too much for me to immediately consider given the general... idk, the Saturn stuff largely holds up well despite it's age, compared to some of the other... lackluster parts in the mod. Everything, except, the engines - which is why I'm prioritizing remaking them first. I believe I scaled them properly against actual measurements this time (usually figuring out what a 'properly' scaled bottom engine exit diameter, and using that to scale as many orthographic drawings I can find from the era and taking the 'average', with as many verifiable pictures I can find that support the drawings as a check), so they'll fit cleanly into a proper scaled Saturn.

If I were to redo Saturn V, it would incorporate all the things myself, Jso and our contributors have been working hard on for the most recent updates. Better use of B9, more accuracy, more detail, more fleshed out, well researched, accurate parts, better more consistent textures, proper AO baking, better emissives and FX, etc etc. For example, I want to have a single S-IVB engine mount, with B9 switching for the ETS S-IVC dual mount, maybe a 4x engine mount, and a LASS engine mount with spots for 2 RL-10 engines, all in one part. And yeah just generally more fleshed out... but that's a long way off. I'm just redoing the engines for now.

[Guest]

I think you could get away with not remaking Skylab (just rescaling), but it would likely require a new docking port to hide the size mismatch. This is basically the only part that interacts with other spacecraft. Then again, Skylab could use some changes, especially now that BG is out with its robotics, you could make the proper ATM truss. The problem with underscaling Saturn I is that it throws off a lot of proportions. Not to mention, as I said, it sells short its actual size. IRL, Skylab was gigantic, much larger than pre-Mir Soviet stations. This wasn't as great as it might seem, since astronauts would, on occasion, end up in a position where all handholds were out of reach, and they had to wait until they drifted far enough to grab one.  Besides some of Nertea's inflatables and his deployable centrifuges, it'd actually be the largest high quality station part in KSP if modeled at proper scale, and the largest rigid station module.  Saturn I was by no means a small rocket, either, and the ETS configurations could actually give the SLS a run for its money with regards to fairing volume! 

I agree that this doesn't have to be done right now, take your time. There's a lot of stuff in BDB that needs a remake more than that. However, compared to other BDB parts, Saturn stuff does stand out. While long development times tend not to be good for consistency, I hope this can be achieved with BDB at some point. 

Edited July 9, 2019 by Guest

[hieywiey]

1 hour ago, Dragon01 said:

I think you could get away with not remaking Skylab (just rescaling), but it would likely require a new docking port to hide the size mismatch. This is basically the only part that interacts with other spacecraft. Then again, Skylab could use some changes, especially now that BG is out with its robotics, you could make the proper ATM truss. The problem with underscaling Saturn I is that it throws off a lot of proportions. Not to mention, as I said, it sells short its actual size. IRL, Skylab was gigantic, much larger than pre-Mir Soviet stations. This wasn't as great as it might seem, since astronauts would, on occasion, end up in a position where all handholds were out of reach, and they had to wait until they drifted far enough to grab one.  Besides some of Nertea's inflatables and his deployable centrifuges, it'd actually be the largest high quality station part in KSP if modeled at proper scale, and the largest rigid station module.  Saturn I was by no means a small rocket, either, and the ETS configurations could actually give the SLS a run for its money with regards to fairing volume! 

I agree that this doesn't have to be done right now, take your time. There's a lot of stuff in BDB that needs a remake more than that. 

I think it is inadvisable for BDB to require a DLC for a part to function to its fullest. If Skylab were to be redone, it should use IR Next for the ATM truss, with an option to use BG in its stead.

[CT96B]

14 minutes ago, hieywiey said:

I think it is inadvisable for BDB to require a DLC for a part to function to its fullest. If Skylab were to be redone, it should use IR Next for the ATM truss, with an option to use BG in its stead.

I strongly concur. DLC should be optional at most for this mod. Keep the mod fully compatible with the "minimum package" so that the most users have the opportunity to use it. An optional extension utilizing DLC would be viable, but should not be the default.

[hieywiey]

11 minutes ago, CT96B said:

I strongly concur. DLC should be optional at most for this mod. Keep the mod fully compatible with the "minimum package" so that the most users have the opportunity to use it. An optional extension utilizing DLC would be viable, but should not be the default.

I think DLC should be optional as an alternative with little to no functional differences to the default, free option.

[KnedlikMCPE]

12 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Does the probe give you control in any circumstances?

 

 

WIP

I get “locked” status, meaning i got totally no control. I just found that it’s the same on all rockets.

[CobaltWolf]

J-2

[hieywiey]

7 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

J-2

That's absolutely gorgeous. What is stored in the white tank?

[CobaltWolf]

15 minutes ago, hieywiey said:

That's absolutely gorgeous. What is stored in the white tank?

It's the start tank. Notably, I believe it isn't present on the J-2S version.

[hieywiey]

Just now, CobaltWolf said:

It's the start tank. Notably, I believe it isn't present on the J-2S version.

Did it use TEATEB to start? Why wouldn't the J-2S have one? Was the starter stored elsewhere?

[CobaltWolf]

3 minutes ago, hieywiey said:

Did it use TEATEB to start? Why wouldn't the J-2S have one? Was the starter stored elsewhere?

From AlternateWars, run by @MKSheppard and an all around fantastic source...

Quote

It was intended to provide performance upgrades for the J-2 and to also simplify the production and operation of the engine. Much of the original J-2 design team worked on the J-2S effort. It was designed with all engine interfaces as such so that it could be a direct “drop-in” replacement for the J-2.

The engine cycle was changed to a topping (tap-off) cycle to eliminate the gas generator. The starting bottle system was eliminated, being replaced with a solid propellant turbine starter (SPTS) system with multiple sealed SPTS units allowing multi-restart capability in space.

[Guest]

It should be noted that J-2S was a different-looking engine from J-2. In fact, it was sort of a midway point between J-2 and J-2X. Interestingly, it was not just a paper engine, and actually pretty well documented:


Also, here's one interesting concept I found while looking for this:

You might have seen it, since it's from AlternateWars, as well.  

[CobaltWolf]

4 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:

It should be noted that J-2S was a different-looking engine from J-2. In fact, it was sort of a midway point between J-2 and J-2X. Interestingly, it was not just a paper engine, and actually pretty well documented:

I think J-2S will stay as just a stat upgrade, the amount of different piping and stuff it would need is a little more than I want to put into it.

 

4 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:

Also, here's one interesting concept I found while looking for this:

You might have seen it, since it's from AlternateWars, as well.  

How'd you know?

 

[Guest]

Really nice. Though I really wish it had proper piping, though. Although I suppose the standard J-2 could have this sort of skirt fitted, as well.

[Pappystein]

5 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

It's the start tank. Notably, I believe it isn't present on the J-2S version.

I am not certain if it is the J-2X (the original paper only design, not the Carbon Carbon fake-make) or the latter J-2S.

I know by the time J-2T and J-2L were ..... err sorry J-2 Toroidal aerospike and  J-2-2200... err sorry again RS-2200 Linear Aerospike... were prototyped the Start tank was gone.  However the J-2 Toroidal were not re-startable and the RS-2200 Linear were re-startable only via a tank on the X-30 they were to be mounted to.

 

To be fare while both the J-2 Toroidal an the RS-2200 were test fired they never proceeded to flight hardware... so IDK if re-start would have been switched to Solid starters like the J-2X/S

4 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

 

Any chance that an extension-less version of that will be a Sea Level replacement then?   It is about the right bell height without the extension

FWIW while the coloring is the same as before the detail on these J-2s and the F-1 is leaps and bounds above the leaps and bounds the E-1 was over the original F-1.

 

 

Edited July 10, 2019 by Pappystein
Picture resize

[DriftedCougar]

11 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

I think J-2S will stay as just a stat upgrade, the amount of different piping and stuff it would need is a little more than I want to put into it.

 

How'd you know?

Snip snip snip

 

(i do sadly know this is unlikely)

With these revamped saturn engines, is there an possibility that there wil also be an M-1?