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

[CobaltWolf]

1 hour ago, MajorLeaugeRocketScience said:

Hey @CobaltWolf, I'm sure you've been asked this plenty but I was just thinking of it as I was making some weird Saturn derivatives. Do you ever intend to add more MLV hardware, like the M-1, or NERVA, or the MEM? Maybe even stuff like the Stage and a half Saturn V or para-wing S-IC?

I'd love to go full von Braun with nuclear Saturn Vs on a direct ascent mission to Mars.

So, I'd like to do a full remake/revamp/refresh of the Saturn and Apollo parts, along the lines of the current work being done for stuff like Thor, before I add things to them again. That would likely include the Saturns getting remade to a more accurate scale (6.25m first stage, for ex). That would also be quite a bit of work and effort to get back up to the content we have now - Skylab would also have to be redone, for instance.

The thought I'd had when starting the current dev cycle I'm on, was the Saturn/Apollo parts were holding up ok while a lot of the early game parts weren't, which is why I focused on them. Then the KSP2 announcement came while I was already starting pre-production on this update. My general idea is hopefully I'll be wrapping up, essentially, everything that isn't Saturn/Apollo to this current higher level of quality around the time KSP2 is out. Once that happens (and this all assumes KSP2 is good and if it isn't I'd probably commit sudoku since I don't know what else I'd do with my time) there would be a fairly long period of me porting as much as possible of the existing parts. My understanding based on the information we have, is that the scales and such won't change so the model assets will likely be able to be reused, but the shaders will be different so the textures will have to be adjusted and new maps created for the newer, more complex inputs inherent in a PBR shader system.

I'd basically port everything I want to keep - so all the stuff that's sort of up to this current quality level - and ignore any remaining pieces I haven't gotten around to. By the time I get to that point, hopefully I'm comfortable and have enough practice with the new art style to feel comfortable doing a "definitive" remake of the Apollo/Saturn parts - they're the flagship of the mod so obviously I want them as good as possible, right? And my goal is basically... everything that could possibly come before them (within reason) would already be done... leaving me wide open to spend the rest of my days making crazy post-Apollo, post-Saturn stuff until I get carted off to a farm upstate.

[MajorLeaugeRocketScience]

11 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

...leaving me wide open to spend the rest of my days making crazy post-Apollo, post-Saturn stuff until I get carted off to a farm upstate.

Spoken like a true rocket scientist

[rottielover]

Hi all,  getting back into the game after a very very long hiatus...  like, Roverdude was getting started with modding and Kethane was still a thing since I last seriously did a playthrough...

I saw this on a youtube video and just had to get it.  I installed with CKAN and then I went to the craft files link on the main post, and added them to my savegame.  In the game the craft files show up but they all say they are incompatible with this version of KSP and have 0 parts in 1 stage.  I'm guessing that the craft file has changed with the latest version?   I guess I have to revert my game using steam to 1.8.1 ?   Thanks in advance!

[Zorg]

4 minutes ago, rottielover said:

Hi all,  getting back into the game after a very very long hiatus...  like, Roverdude was getting started with modding and Kethane was still a thing since I last seriously did a playthrough...

I saw this on a youtube video and just had to get it.  I installed with CKAN and then I went to the craft files link on the main post, and added them to my savegame.  In the game the craft files show up but they all say they are incompatible with this version of KSP and have 0 parts in 1 stage.  I'm guessing that the craft file has changed with the latest version?   I guess I have to revert my game using steam to 1.8.1 ?   Thanks in advance!

Welcome back to KSP! Which version of KSP were you running btw? BDB should be fine from KSP 1.7.3 to KSP 1.9

The craft files were built on KSP 1.7 but they should be forward compatible.

[MashAndBangers]

8 minutes ago, rottielover said:

Hi all,  getting back into the game after a very very long hiatus...  like, Roverdude was getting started with modding and Kethane was still a thing since I last seriously did a playthrough...

I saw this on a youtube video and just had to get it.  I installed with CKAN and then I went to the craft files link on the main post, and added them to my savegame.  In the game the craft files show up but they all say they are incompatible with this version of KSP and have 0 parts in 1 stage.  I'm guessing that the craft file has changed with the latest version?   I guess I have to revert my game using steam to 1.8.1 ?   Thanks in advance!

Generally speaking, if you installed with CKAN, go to the CKAN thread.

I'd advise you install manually, which is veeeery simple.  And then you can install the developmental builds currently going on and check out all the cool probes and early rockets!  Perhaps even help catch bugs

[rottielover]

Hi Zorg - I'm on 1.9 currently.  did not make any changes yet.   All the parts work etc, but it's the CRAFT files from the Github page I seem to have an issue with.

Hi Mash - I don't think it's the mod install or mod itself, that seems to all be working just fine in the game.  I just wanted to load up the example CRAFT files in order to get a better idea of how the parts go together and get some design ideas.

[MOARdV]

1 hour ago, MajorLeaugeRocketScience said:

Spoken like a true rocket scientist

He is a steely-eyed missile man, for sure.

[Zorg]

27 minutes ago, rottielover said:

Hi Zorg - I'm on 1.9 currently.  did not make any changes yet.   All the parts work etc, but it's the CRAFT files from the Github page I seem to have an issue with.

Hi Mash - I don't think it's the mod install or mod itself, that seems to all be working just fine in the game.  I just wanted to load up the example CRAFT files in order to get a better idea of how the parts go together and get some design ideas.

I just opened up my 1.9 install and the craft files loaded up just fine. I would suggest deleting them and downloading a fresh copy of the craft files (this wont affect your save). If you get an error again could you send a screenshot of the message?

Its also worth noting that @Friznit has made an extensive wiki for BDB which covers way more than the craft files: 

https://github.com/friznit/Unofficial-BDB-Wiki/wiki

 

[Pappystein]

5 hours ago, Zorg said:

Welcome back to KSP! Which version of KSP were you running btw? BDB should be fine from KSP 1.7.3 to KSP 1.9

The craft files were built on KSP 1.7 but they should be forward compatible.

 

I am going to assume that the CKAN craft files are the old ones, since at last public announcement RE BDB&CKAN, the BDB team does not actively maintain anything on CKAN. 

[DeadJohn]

5 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

I'd probably commit sudoku since I don't know what else I'd do with my time

I can't tell if that's a good joke or a typo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudoku

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku

[nepphhh]

32 minutes ago, DeadJohn said:

I can't tell if that's a good joke or a typo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudoku

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku

It's an old, old, joke. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/commit-sudoku

[rottielover]

1 hour ago, Pappystein said:

 

I am going to assume that the CKAN craft files are the old ones, since at last public announcement RE BDB&CKAN, the BDB team does not actively maintain anything on CKAN. 

Did not get the CRAFT files from ckan,  I got them from GitHub

[Pappystein]

7 hours ago, MajorLeaugeRocketScience said:

Hey @CobaltWolf, I'm sure you've been asked this plenty but I was just thinking of it as I was making some weird Saturn derivatives. Do you ever intend to add more MLV hardware, like the M-1, or NERVA, or the MEM? Maybe even stuff like the Stage and a half Saturn V or para-wing S-IC?

I'd love to go full von Braun with nuclear Saturn Vs on a direct ascent mission to Mars.

5 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

I'd basically port everything I want to keep - so all the stuff that's sort of up to this current quality level - and ignore any remaining pieces I haven't gotten around to.

So MLV stuff already in the core database:

• AJ-260 SRB/SRMs
• MS-IVB stages (extended tank for S-IVC is 'correct' length for long MS-IVB) 
• MS-II 7engine engine plate
• Bonus S-IVC tank extension is about the right size for the tank extension on top of a Large AJ-260 (for thrust structure alignment.  Convert to LF/O and add fuel lines from your AJ-260s to the MS-IC tankage)

And if you install the Pafftek folder under BDB_Extras you get the following MLV stuff (based on re-scaled parts):

• MS-IC tanks (all lengths)
• Flat or common Bulkhead MS-1C tanks (including two not proposed versions)
• MS-II tanks (two new lengths the 3rd length is mentioned on Astronautix but none of the actual MLV docs.)
• HG-3 and HG-3SL engines (re-using J-2 engine models.)
• 400,000 lb/f version of the J-2T torrodial engine (as listed in MLV documents)

My list of parts missing to complete all the MLV studies:

• 156" SRM (likely not CSD so it wouldn't look like a scaled up UA-120x)
• M-1 engine and appropriate mounting hardware
• MS-IVN Nerva, new engine mount and Nerva engine required and possibly a completely new stage

And my list of parts that are really needed to take advantage of MLV:

• new larger SM/CSM/Lander for Mars missions (aka no longer Apollo)
• Actively cooled Hydrogen tankage (reduces/eliminates LH2 boiloff)

This probably is not a complete list but I hope it helps.   A LOT of the MLV stuff is already in game... you just have to "think/work" it together.  

Three pictures of the largest MLV buildable with 4x AJ-260s:

[Zorg]

4 hours ago, Pappystein said:

 

I am going to assume that the CKAN craft files are the old ones, since at last public announcement RE BDB&CKAN, the BDB team does not actively maintain anything on CKAN. 

Our netkan files are actually up to date and should install correctly from CKAN. I made sure during the last update with some help from the people at CKAN. However craft files (and BDB_Extras) are not included with a CKAN install since it will only install the Bluedog_DB folder (and get the dependencies independently).

[CobaltWolf]

Some stuff I've started working on... getting the Agena materials bay in line with the current Agena texturing style...

Also began work on some other parts....

[GoldForest]

4 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Some stuff I've started working on... getting the Agena materials bay in line with the current Agena texturing style...

[Snippity snips]


 

Also began work on some other parts....

Yay! ATV!

[Machinique]

I've definitely been waiting for the ATV, since it's nice for some various Gemini lunar missions. Looking pretty good!

[GoldForest]

@CobaltWolf Any plans to include the Agena Gemini Lunar Lander Transporter?

Edited February 18, 2020 by GoldForest

[CobaltWolf]

Just now, GoldForest said:

@CobaltWolf Any plans to include the Agena Gemini Lunar Lander Transporter?

The hwut?

[GoldForest]

3 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

The hwut?

The bottom one.

Agena Gemini Lunar Lander Transporter (not the official name)

[CobaltWolf]

Just now, GoldForest said:

The bottom one.

Agena Gemini Lunar Lander Transporter (not the official name)

I mean I don't think that has any historical basis... seems like someone just... superimposed the little langley lander over a GATV I can see about like... an adapter to mount to the bottom of the lander?

[GoldForest]

4 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

I mean I don't think that has any historical basis... seems like someone just... superimposed the little langley lander over a GATV I can see about like... an adapter to mount to the bottom of the lander?

It was a considered concept. Along with the Gemini ferry.

But anything you can give us to make the lander more transportable would be greatly appreciated. 

[Pappystein]

42 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

It was a considered concept. Along with the Gemini ferry.

But anything you can give us to make the lander more transportable would be greatly appreciated. 

I don't believe any of these drawings are "Real"   That is to say they seem to be a creation of a website author and not that of McD/NASA etc...   However, I too agree,  The Gemini lander needs a "home" like the Apollo lander.   Short of using some of the Inter-stage options in either Proc-Fairings or SSTU, I have a hard time getting that to the Mun without flying two full up rockets.

Now the drawings themselves are fun...   Why do you need a full Agena Guidance section on a Centaur?   Further, How the heck can a Centaur (with it's boil-off issues) be used to get a Gemini capsule HOME from the Mun.    The only reason to put an Agena Guidance system on a Centaur is if the Centaur Guidance system is suspect/non functional....   The several hundred successful Centaur launches would lead me to believe that that is not true. 

I think the only drawings in this line that are accurate is the Gemini on-top of a Centaur to get TO the Moon and the Agena SM that is not pictured here but is in the same family of drawings.   An Agena alone does not have enough Delta V to get a Gemini Capsule + SM from the Moon to Earth.   And Further, @GoldForest as Cobalt has already stated the Agena with the Lander on it is literally someone transposing the lander on a Agena GATV.   The Location of the lander replaces all the batteries and 1/3rd the fuel tank.   Making Agena un-usuable.     I have also seen that picture listed as a one way AUTOMATED lander using the Agena guidance section on top of a Langley Gemini Lander.   That also wouldn't work due to the fact that it has no radio to reach Earth from the Moon and Agena has no logic for landing.   So in the end the drawings are made up to "inspire" us, not as factual design drawings.

[GoldForest]

16 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

I don't believe any of these drawings are "Real"   That is to say they seem to be a creation of a website author and not that of McD/NASA etc...   However, I too agree,  The Gemini lander needs a "home" like the Apollo lander.   Short of using some of the Inter-stage options in either Proc-Fairings or SSTU, I have a hard time getting that to the Mun without flying two full up rockets.

Now the drawings themselves are fun...   Why do you need a full Agena Guidance section on a Centaur?   Further, How the heck can a Centaur (with it's boil-off issues) be used to get a Gemini capsule HOME from the Mun.    The only reason to put an Agena Guidance system on a Centaur is if the Centaur Guidance system is suspect/non functional....   The several hundred successful Centaur launches would lead me to believe that that is not true. 

I think the only drawings in this line that are accurate is the Gemini on-top of a Centaur to get TO the Moon and the Agena SM that is not pictured here but is in the same family of drawings.   An Agena alone does not have enough Delta V to get a Gemini Capsule + SM from the Moon to Earth.   And Further, @GoldForest as Cobalt has already stated the Agena with the Lander on it is literally someone transposing the lander on a Agena GATV.   The Location of the lander replaces all the batteries and 1/3rd the fuel tank.   Making Agena un-usuable.     I have also seen that picture listed as a one way AUTOMATED lander using the Agena guidance section on top of a Langley Gemini Lander.   That also wouldn't work due to the fact that it has no radio to reach Earth from the Moon and Agena has no logic for landing.   So in the end the drawings are made up to "inspire" us, not as factual design drawings.

Wasn't there a concept for a non-boil off fuel centaur stage that got scrapped due to costs or something?

Wasn't it the shuttle centaur? Or am I remembering wrong.

Edited February 18, 2020 by GoldForest

[Friznit]

I tried to do a Gemini Mun mission using the stacked Centaur-Agena concept.  It didn't work out well.

I usually do early career Gemini landings on an almost-Titan IIIC with the lander wrapped in a fairing under the Gemini service module.  Admittedly it does look a little odd though.

Edited February 18, 2020 by Friznit