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

[MashAndBangers]

I see one of the commits in the dev branch involves more rocket sounds courtesy of Beale.  Will this affect all rockets or only certain rockets?  Or still in development? 

 

And welcome to page 643 >:D

Edited April 13, 2020 by MashAndBangers

[Zorg]

2 minutes ago, MashAndBangers said:

I see one of the commits in the dev branch involves more rocket sounds courtesy of Beale.  Will this affect all rockets or only certain rockets?  Or still in development? 

 

And welcome to page 643 >:D

Only a few engines for now. The sounds themselves are also WIP, they have some noticeable looping that Beale is going to work on. These are borrowed from his current project, Commonwealth Rockets which btw you all should check out if you haven't already. Plays real nice with BDB too.

Black Arrow Vanguard Able

Bluestreak Agena

 

 

 

 

[Pappystein]

5 hours ago, Zorg said:

 

 

Of-course this means I have to delete the Brexit half of the original CRE... Bye Bye Excelsior!

The new Bluestreak is looking real good.   I can't wait for the mod to come together.   Been playing with the Stenator Rocket plane a bit.    It is a enlarged Civilian adaption of the Blue Steel Nuclear Cruise missile

 

[golkaidakhaana]

Does anyone have any info on the MSD upper stage used on the Atlas H and how to recreate it in BDB?

Edited April 14, 2020 by golkaidakhaana

[Zorg]

1 hour ago, sslaptnhablhat said:

Does anyone have any info on the MSD upper stage used on the Atlas H and how to recreate it in BDB?

You can kitbash it by using any suitably small probe core on top of the Altair solid motor and attaching the micro monoprop bottles and thrusters.

https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/noss-1_msd.htm

Thats a real interesting fairing by the way for the 1.25m size class

[derega16]

Can anyone explain why in payload chart list LKO payload of saturn V (about 9t) lower than I (10t)? It make no sense

[Zorg]

9 minutes ago, derega16 said:

Can anyone explain why in payload chart list LKO payload of saturn V (about 9t) lower than I (10t)? It make no sense

 

There are some errors in that chart. Friz will make a fixed version at some point.

Edited April 14, 2020 by Zorg

[Zorg]

I've become quite fond of Black Arrow Able (V). Here's a little video I made also featuring a demonstration of yoyo despin at the end.

Edit; Also if anyone was wondering about the sound I was trying out Audio Muffler, I don't think I will stick with it though. It would have been nice if it deadened the sound without killing it completely, but I didnt want to refilm it.

Edited April 14, 2020 by Zorg

[Friznit]

56 minutes ago, derega16 said:

Can anyone explain why in payload chart list LKO payload of saturn V (about 9t) lower than I (10t)? It make no sense

 

1 hour ago, Zorg said:

There are some errors in that chart. Friz will make a fixed version at some point.

Kinda sorta - this is a chart for single specific mission profile: payload capacity to 100x100 LKO.  In the case of Saturn V, it's designed for lobbing things to the Moon and a lot of the potential payload capacity is taken up by the mass of the third stage, which is used for the Trans Lunar Insertion.  In this case you can either consider the third stage as part of the payload, or just remove the third stage altogether (i.e. see Saturn INT-21) and the capacity to LKO shoots up to 58t.

I could include the mass of upper stages in the payload numbers for rockets optimised for higher orbits but that might be confusing.  I might just do a second chart with a different mission profile since after all, the intended use of this is to give a very rough steer as to which rocket family to use for a given payload mass.

[derega16]

1 hour ago, Zorg said:

There are some errors in that chart. Friz will make a fixed version at some point.

The chart looks like it need to change a lot. I just lofted 10 t Munarlander descent stage to TMI with Titan IVB+Centaur T in JNSQ with 400m/s to spare on centaur after TMI (only to fond it can't dock with ascent stage because descent's anthena intersect with one of ascent's engine). So LKO is likely much more than that

8 minutes ago, Friznit said:

 

Kinda sorta - this is a chart for single specific mission profile: payload capacity to 100x100 LKO.  In the case of Saturn V, it's designed for lobbing things to the Moon and a lot of the potential payload capacity is taken up by the mass of the third stage, which is used for the Trans Lunar Insertion.  In this case you can either consider the third stage as part of the payload, or just remove the third stage altogether (i.e. see Saturn INT-21) and the capacity to LKO shoots up to 58t.

I could include the mass of upper stages in the payload numbers for rockets optimised for higher orbits but that might be confusing.  I might just do a second chart with a different mission profile since after all, the intended use of this is to give a very rough steer as to which rocket family to use for a given payload mass.

May be another chart for GTO or TMI? since the former is commonly use in real rocket spec and the later is more useful for KSP 

Edited April 14, 2020 by derega16

[Friznit]

10 minutes ago, derega16 said:

The chart looks like it need to change a lot. I just lofted 10 t Munarlander descent stage to TMI with Titan IVB+Centaur T in JNSQ with 400m/s to spare on centaur after TMI (only to fond it can't dock with ascent stage because descent's anthena intersect with one of ascent's engine). So LKO is likely much more than that

Try hitting 100x100 orbit with the same payload and see how you get on.  This is a very specific mission profile and Titan IVB probably isn't the best choice for it.  Indeed it will be interesting to see how they all stack up given a different mission profile - I have no doubt that likes of Titan IV, Delta IV, Saturn V and indeed Atlas II will come much higher up the list.

[Zorg]

11 minutes ago, Friznit said:

Try hitting 100x100 orbit with the same payload and see how you get on.  This is a very specific mission profile and Titan IVB probably isn't the best choice for it.  Indeed it will be interesting to see how they all stack up given a different mission profile - I have no doubt that likes of Titan IV, Delta IV, Saturn V and indeed Atlas II will come much higher up the list.

Titan IV-B is quite a capable LKO lifter with no Centaur. With the Centaur a lot of DV will be wasted due to a heavily lofted trajectory due to the low TWR if trying to max out at LKO so its not ideal. 

I think the confusion is that in the chart the vehicles optmised for higher orbits with high efficiency low thrust uppers have been depicted launching their payloads with into LKO with a mostly still full upper stage. But the mass of the upper stage is unaccounted for.

 

[Zarbon44]

Few screens from my recent escapades with BDB parts.

[Petrovich]

1 hour ago, Zarbon44 said:

Few screens from my recent escapades with BDB parts.

Where do those shuttle parts come from?

[hieywiey]

29 minutes ago, Petrovich said:

Where do those shuttle parts come from?

They come from APUS.

[ItsJustLuci]

booted up my game and saw this, https://imgur.com/a/ssC4Y4F how worried should I be?

 

[Jso]

22 minutes ago, lk00david said:

booted up my game and saw this, https://imgur.com/a/ssC4Y4F how worried should I be?

 

Something changed your ModuleEnginesFX to something else. RealFuels?

[ItsJustLuci]

1 minute ago, Jso said:

Something changed your ModuleEnginesFX to something else. RealFuels?

I'm using realfuels, yes. but I reinstalled both BDB and B9part switch manually and no error now

Edited April 14, 2020 by lk00david

[Teslamax]

On 4/13/2020 at 8:29 AM, Pappystein said:

Eh, CMB IRL is 50" in diameter which is 1.27m.   In KSP scale (x 0.64) would be SLIGHTLY smaller than 0.9375m (at 0.8128m.)    So at the scales used in BDB, 0.9375 is about PERFECT size (maybe slightly small but closer to correct than 0.625 or 1.25m.)      Now a lot of mods use 1.25 and that is fine... But, unless their parts use the same scale factor... the CMB/APAS/CADS/WhateverYouWantToCallIt ends up looking HUGE.   Checking the web I found the Dimensions of the most modern iteration (the US designed IDA which updates the existing APAS-95 on the ISS to the new NDS or IDSS system.  1.6m to the outer skin of the extension which is actually BIGGER than the docking port by about a decimeter  1.6x0.64= 1.024m....   1.5x.64 = 0.9375....  So for ISS type docking ports the physical part should be on the 0.9375m size (by math.)

While CADS is part of the Eyes Turned Skyward Alt timeline it is basically an APAS-75 with minor changes.

The appropriate in-game size for APAS/NDS/IDSS is 0.9375m. 

 

 I had a discussion with @e of pi back in 2017 regarding the initial intent of the design for ETS' CADS.

Quote

Our intent was that the Common Androgynous Docking System has roughly the same pass through as the OTL CBM.

Therefore CADS is much closer in size and function to the CBM than to the smaller APAS/NDS/IDSS.

 

If CADS/CBM is properly scaled at 0.9375 then you would need to shrink APAS/NDS/IDSS/iLIDS appropriately. Since so much of BDB has APAS at 0.9375 already and that the primary stock docking port size in KSP is 1.25m, I made the assumption that the latter should be the presumed size for CBM/CADS.

CBM geometry

The CBM doesn't have a circular pass-through. This can make for misleading port geometry.

As per "Docking and berthing of spacecraft: List of mechanisms/systems (Wikipedia)"

Quote

The standard CBM has a pass through in the shape of a square with rounded edges and has a width of 1,300 mm (50 in).

 Regarding the CBM, "Space Station. Freedom Common Berthing Mechanism", page (3) 283.

Quote

The structural ring of the Active Berthing Mechanism is a machined forging of 2219-T852 aluminum having an outside diameter of approximately 2.0 meters (80 inches) and inside diameter of approximately 1.8 meters (71 inches) with a depth of .19 meter (7.5 inches)

This would make the KSP-adjusted exterior and interior of the port 1.28m and 1.15m respectively, regardless of the pass-through.

 

P.S. Please pardon the OCD on my part.

Edited April 15, 2020 by Teslamax

[Zorg]

Explorer 1/Juno 1 test flight footage.

Spin table via the Dock Rotate mod and also showing off the g force animated antennas on Explorer 1.

 

[TheAceOfHearts]

4 hours ago, Zorg said:

Explorer 1/Juno 1 test flight footage.

Spin table via the Dock Rotate mod and also showing off the g force animated antennas on Explorer 1.

Spoiler

 

 

I'm curious about what mods you're using for your space center. You use JNSQ, right? What's the launch tower you have? I'm absolutely loving the g force animated antennas.

[Zorg]

9 hours ago, TheAceOfHearts said:

I'm curious about what mods you're using for your space center. You use JNSQ, right? What's the launch tower you have? I'm absolutely loving the g force animated antennas.

So if you install Kerbal Konstructs and Omegas Stockalike Structures No Textures Required (OSSNTR), you should get a bunch of alternate launch sites provided by the JNSQ devs.

In addition if you install KSC Extended with its dependency Tundra Space Center, you will get an expansion to the main KSC with historical pads. Some of the smaller ones are off at an alternate location. The one pictured in the video is LC-05 

In my case I wrote some custom configs to place extra KSC extended configs at a location of my choosing (which is the base seen in the video) and to expand the CMcAuliffe space center provided with JNSQ, but Im not sharing these configs yet publicly because they are quite rough and have some issues. But if you just install the mods above you will have all these fantastic pads in their usual locations.

 

Also just to add to that while the background towers come from KSC Extended/Tundra, the launch clamp/towers are from Modular Launch Pads. If you get Tundra, you might as well get Modular Launch Pads for the complete look  A lot of the Modular Launch Pads stuff, certainly most of the none shuttle american stuff was also specifically made with BDB first in mind too.

Edited April 16, 2020 by Zorg

[AlphaMensae]

Ah, going to render another of Zorg's screenshots outdated shortly after being posted  

For you fans of the early Thors and Deltas, the newest thing for v2.1 of Modular Launch Pads: the Thor/Delta Launch Stand (actually shown in the above screenshot  and animated Fallback Tower (used mostly with the Able-derived upper stages):

 

 

[Cedric Feldmann - Bear]

Weird thing to ask, but can we get an unpainted Saturn V?

credit for ThePrimalDino for the Unpainted Saturn V.

Edited April 16, 2020 by Cedric Feldmann - Bear

[golkaidakhaana]

6 minutes ago, Cedric Feldmann - Bear said:

Weird thing to ask, but can we get an unpainted Saturn V?
credit for ThePrimalDino for the Unpainted Saturn V.

Saturn parts aren't being revamped for a while.