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

[CDSlice]

2 minutes ago, Russekof71 said:

 

hello, I wanted to know if you are going to put the SLS in your next update?

SLS is a future rocket and out of scope for this mod, however there are other great SLS mods if you search for SLS in the add on forum.

[Russekof71]

9 minutes ago, CDSlice said:

SLS est une future fusée et hors de portée pour ce mod, mais il existe d'autres excellents mods SLS si vous recherchez SLS dans l'ajout sur le forum.

ok its walking! thank you !

[OrbitalManeuvers]

The RCS thrusters on the Zhengming Retro Module are not producing any thrust and have no visual plume for me. Anyone else?

[Pappystein]

1 hour ago, Russekof71 said:

 

hello, I wanted to know if you are going to put the SLS in your next update?

SLS is not nor ever has been on the roadmap for BDB (unless the devs decided to make it...)  IE it is not an announced plan.  And given the revamp and Gigantification of Saturn is the next step on the roadmap.  And there are literally THOUSANDS of parts (well maybe hundreds) needed for everything Apollo and Saturn.....  While Atlas V and Delta IV both exist in BDB they were, as I understand it, added because they "Finished the line" from the old 1960s Atlas and Delta rockets.  It was the original stated intent for Cobaltwolf that nothing as new as the Space Shuttle would be built (meaning stopping BEFORE the Space Shuttle.)

 

 

There are several mods that make a good SLS  (I suggest reDIRECT which also covers the Jupiter proposals.)  BDB is likely not going to be making one.   

 

Edited December 11, 2020 by Pappystein
why do I keep calling reDIRECT restock?

[DeadJohn]

7 hours ago, Morphisor said:

@DeadJohn You're not wrong. On the contracts side I am limited by the workings of Contract Configurator, so an improvement would have to come from the experiment definitions.

 

1 hour ago, Zorg said:

Yes this is something I've been meaning to resolve for more clarity. Its a little troublesome because one is a title and the other is an action but theres definitely room for improvement. For instance changing Take Cloudcover Images to Perform Orbital Weather Observation etc

Is there anything I can help with? I understand modding concepts but don't know KSP syntax. I suppose every part could be edited to hardcode the same name as in the relevant science definition, but there are probably better ways to do it.

Possibility 1: edit each CFG with something like this. Apologies for the horribly wrong pseudocode syntax.

experimentActionName = scienceDefinitions.Lookup(@experimentID).Title.String // was Take Cloudcover Images

Possibility 2: leave the existing CFGs alone and do it with one Module Manager patch. Again, incomplete pseudocode, copied from other MM examples.

@PART[bluedog_*]:AFTER[BDB]:HAS[experimentActionName]
{
@experimentActionName = #$@RESOURCE[experimentID]/title$
}

 

[computercat04]

5 hours ago, Russekof71 said:

 

hello, I wanted to know if you are going to put the SLS in your next update?

I think not. SLS is already on Redirect.

[Invaderchaos]

Another sneak peak... By now I hope it might be more apparent what the probe I was hinting at doing is. I'm actually modelling it a lot faster than I thought I would.

[Starhelperdude]

I want to name the probe but I don't want to destroy the ''suprise'' 

[Minmus Taster]

1 hour ago, Invaderchaos said:

Another sneak peak... By now I hope it might be more apparent what the probe I was hinting at doing is. I'm actually modelling it a lot faster than I thought I would.

Il put my theory in a spoiler box!

Spoiler

Its Pioneer 10 OH MY GOD.

 

[computercat04]

10 minutes ago, Minmus Taster said:

Its Pioneer 10 OH MY GOD.

Maybe Voyager 

[Mudwig]

@Minmus Taster Well, I think it's Pioneer 11. ;^D

[Invaderchaos]

5 minutes ago, Mudwig said:

@Minmus Taster Well, I think it's Pioneer 11. ;^D

Guess you could also say I'm doing Pioneer 12 as well, as that would've been the designation to any pioneer 10/11 follow-on mission (before those were cancelled). One of those missions was the Pioneer Outer Planets Orbiter. It would've added a propulsion module as well as an additional science bay with a line scan imaging system (in place of the micrometeoroid detector). Here's a couple images of it:

[computercat04]

Gemini from Gemini.

[Pappystein]

So I finally got KSP up and running with all my preferred mods (was having speed issues on a 64GB i9-9900X)     Turns out you should pay close attention to those modes you decided to download in "beta" testing status......

Anyway.   First I wanted to fly the HOSS.   I have stayed away from Cryogenic BDB tanks since the Titan Update because the old Boiloff system and I didn't get along..... and I am trying to make things "more realistic"   (yeah it is a game and it isn't realistic so sue me for making it harder!)


First launch of this sandbox career is a long range communication satellite in a 90 degree orbit at 15Mm
 

After my above comments, you KNOW I checked how the new Boiloff worked:

I used the HOSS tank on the left and the Delta III upper fuel tank on right side of the stage, but set to Hydrolox fuel.   Yes I had enough Delta V to get to the Mun and back ignoring boil-off.   But this showcases the HUGE improvements to Boiloff.  Notices that the Delta III tank is boiling off Hydrogen at a much higher rate.  
Great job BDB Team!  ESP Jso!

 

Then, I flew @Well's X-20.   Just to make certain I could still fly a plane in KSP (it has been a hot minute given all the issues with 1.9x and 1.10x with my mods!)
 

And in doing so I realized I deleted all my custom Hypergolic fuel configs!    That LR91 is in a blasphemous burn with Kerolox!
 

Then Cobalt and I had a very brief discussion about Saturn.... Which made me do this (Don't hate me @CobaltWolf !)
 

Spoiler

It took me 5 launches to get the Orel (Russian for Eagle) Shuttle into orbit on Shuttle Saturn.
Initial config used 2 S-1F tanks to counter balance the Shuttle and provide fuel to the Orel itself.    First 3 launch attempts ended in failure to orbit (not enough thrust out of 5 or 7 J-2 engines to move that much mass to orbital speed)

Here it is right before I realized I wasn't going to make orbit (this is 5 J2T-400k engines! that may or may not still be in the Extras folder)

 

Final version took two launches to perfect the Launch  and staging process.   If I didn't use Drainex sensors from Smart Parts this ride would have been much rougher.  

Tanks are LFO filled Titan Tank parts with Tweakscaled Titan II Warhead fairings as nose and tail cones.   And two FT800 tanks with stock nose cones serve as a buffer tank (to allow fuel to be drawn from the Titan tanks since the S-II tank occludes them and the Orel's Rocket tanks)

about here I made a mistake.  I switched to Discord.   the result was the shuttle lost attitude control and spun out...  While still in it's climb to orbit.

I ran myself out of Monopropellant for the RCS.....     trying to save the shuttle.

And I did.  BARELY.   I jettisoned the MS-II stage earlier than I wanted as the combined Orel and MS-II were uncontrollable.   (I had switched to 5x J-2X by the way  as they were more controllable than the J2T-400k and about the same thrust)
 

So now, my shuttle is in space without any Monopropellant and not enough fuel to reliably return from orbit......  Stupid Discord distraction!
 

Delta IVH to the Rescue:  

Yes that brown nose section is actually the X-20 Adapter from Well's X-20 mod.   I needed a cone that went from 1.875 to 1.25 and could pass fuel.... and it carried mono-propellant (I would exhaust most of the Mono-propellant on this flight between getting there and then filling up the Orel)

Arrival

and I landed here because CRAP it was 2:30 in the Morning!

 

Notes:

Delta IV.   I flew a Delta IVM5.4 (BDB craft file) and a Delta IV Heavy (again BDB Craft file)   While all the parts for the Delta IV were there, neither had staging set well or correctly.   Just a FYI
*WHY OH WHY* did I delete all my work on my custom Fuel setups for BDB.....   I don't think I have a complete backup either!
Fun to fly again now that KSP is a little more stable.   (Believe the issue was Bleeding edge Kopernicus + EVE and a communication mod that gave a lot of antennas that you had to BUILD.)

 

 

 

[Pappystein]

Feedback on V 1.7.1 (I am using the current dev build as of 2 days ago)

1) the new parts are freekin awesome!

2) new Boiloff is even MOAR Awesome!

3) Alt Delta parts (like the Double barrel adaptor) are a great add in.   HOWEVER

3a) Delta parts are cluttered and I spent over 5 minutes finding the engine cover for the main engine (had to look up Thor parts to find it and there were much fewer parts there.)  Some MOST of this is NASA's fault for naming every Thor Rocket with a NASA purchases Able/Ablestar stages for,  DELTA.   But some of it could be eliminated by improved tagging I think (but hey I don't know!)

3aa) WHY CAN'T NASA STICK TO ONE NOMENCLATURE THAT MAKES SENSE!?   Maybe change the tagging for the 1st Stage of all rockets in the Delta Line to not have the name delta but just say THOR for tagging?   All the Upper stages have DELTA as a tag?   IDK just an idea

4) Delta IV (no just luck I got to this point when I wanted to talk about it, it's position wasn't planned... honest! )  The parts look Amazing but as I said in the post above, the two craft files I used (Delta IVM 5,4 and Delta IVH+ I think) had staging all messed up and I had to build the rocket over again (without pulling new parts just disconnect and reconnect.)

5) Delta IV 5m fairing has 2 of it's 3 options without segments (SAF style fairing,)  If this is intended cool but took me a minute to find the right faring to fit my payload as shown above.

6) Delta HOSS upper stage.   Could really use a 1.5m SAF fairing that can FIT The HOSS's GCU inside it (or an update the HOSS GCU to add the 1.5m+ Fairing size.    The HOSS' GCU limits you to 0.9375m (or is it 1.25m... I don't remember now)  

6a) HOSS had minor issues separating from the Delta 1.5m Inter-stage.   Might need some sort of Ullage to cleanly seperate.

6b) Maybe a version of the Multi-Barrel parts that could act as an inter-stage so I don't have to stack an inter-stage on top of it (or does it already and I did a dumb?)???

 

 

[CAPFlyer]

45 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

3a) Delta parts are cluttered and I spent over 5 minutes finding the engine cover for the main engine (had to look up Thor parts to find it and there were much fewer parts there.)  Some MOST of this is NASA's fault for naming every Thor Rocket with a NASA purchases Able/Ablestar stages for,  DELTA.   But some of it could be eliminated by improved tagging I think (but hey I don't know!)

3aa) WHY CAN'T NASA STICK TO ONE NOMENCLATURE THAT MAKES SENSE!?   Maybe change the tagging for the 1st Stage of all rockets in the Delta Line to not have the name delta but just say THOR for tagging?   All the Upper stages have DELTA as a tag?   IDK just an idea

Don't blame NASA for Douglas's problems with naming.  The only rockets that NASA ever had direct naming responsibility over were the ones they specifically ordered (aka Apollo, Space Shuttle, Constellation, and SLS).  All other rockets were existing commercial or military rockets that were modified for NASA use.  Even so - naming *was* consistent.  The change from "Thor Delta" occurred at a time when rocket designs were standardizing and the need for simplified naming was desired.  So the change was made as the Delta B came into service (the first "operational" Delta version).  However, internally, the first stage was always called the Thor until the Delta IV.  The Wikipedia article on the Delta family actually has a good chart showing the naming for the stages/tanks and their associated 4-digit numbering scheme.

[CSRobot]

Love the new update. Did find some issues that may be my fault or may be a bug in the update. The Vega engine is plain gray without any texturing. The Hermes main parachute is like 1 meter long but registers as something like 20 meters long. It appears that the parachute reads in the VAB as if it is open and extended. This causes the Hermes Ethoh to be too tall to launch in a level 1 VAB. 

[Friznit]

3 hours ago, Pappystein said:

   While all the parts for the Delta IV were there, neither had staging set well or correctly.   Just a FYI

That's a feature - I didn't want to make it too easy for you 

[Mudwig]

@Invaderchaos That propulsion system looks like a blown-up version of the Lunar Orbiter one, though I doubt it's actually all that similar. It could be a really useful part in any case.

 

@Pappystein with regard to point 6: You can just put a Delta P/K 1.5m fairing on top of the HOSS probe core part. It's basically seamless and the angles match up perfectly.

Edited December 12, 2020 by Mudwig

[Pappystein]

1 hour ago, Mudwig said:

 

@Pappystein with regard to point 6: You can just put a Delta P/K 1.5m fairing on top of the HOSS probe core part. It's basically seamless and the angles match up perfectly.

The HOSS Avoionics is a 1.5m to something smaller truncated cone.  But maybe I am dumb,  I will try again after I finish editing my Hypergolic fuel files so they work again

 

[Clamp-o-Tron]

4 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

The HOSS Avoionics is a 1.5m to something smaller truncated cone.  But maybe I am dumb,  I will try again after I finish editing my Hypergolic fuel files so they work again

 

I’ve got a set of hypergol configuration files that are updated for 1.7.1, as well as supporting several other mods. Still in dev, though  

 

 

[Pappystein]

3 hours ago, CAPFlyer said:

Don't blame NASA for Douglas's problems with naming.  The only rockets that NASA ever had direct naming responsibility over were the ones they specifically ordered (aka Apollo, Space Shuttle, Constellation, and SLS).  All other rockets were existing commercial or military rockets that were modified for NASA use.  Even so - naming *was* consistent.  The change from "Thor Delta" occurred at a time when rocket designs were standardizing and the need for simplified naming was desired.  So the change was made as the Delta B came into service (the first "operational" Delta version).  However, internally, the first stage was always called the Thor until the Delta IV.  The Wikipedia article on the Delta family actually has a good chart showing the naming for the stages/tanks and their associated 4-digit numbering scheme.

I have to respectfully disagree with you.   While I know Douglas, then McDonald Douglas and then Boeing each changed the naming nomenclature... it would have been EASY and relatively painless for NASA to use a forced designation system like the DOD uses.       Instead, by letting the manufacture name crap whatever they wanted... things get confusing.    I give you Delta P (rocket proposed but never flown) and Delta P Upper stage.   Or Delta K (again rocket Proposed, designed but then never ordered/flown) and the Delta K upper stage.    Delta D Rocket, and Delta D upper stage?

 

How about we jump to NASA's own rockets?    The Entire Saturn line is fraught with "unique" and non standardized designations starting with the stages and quickly progressing forward into entire rocket proposals.      From a Nomenclature standpoint Calling a modified Saturn I first stage the S-IB makes sense...   But when you call the Saturn V's first stage which is NOT a modification of the S-I or S-IB the S-IC..... yeah... an obviously not planned out nomenclature system.   Which leads to confusion, which leads to duplication of work, which leads to potentially bad things.        More modern.  NASA has stood by the Space Shuttle main engine is the SSME for close to 40 years... now it is the RS-25 which was the manufacture's designation from the start.   

Just two examples of poor nomenclature at NASA for projects originated at NASA and created by NASA.     heck the Pre 1962 US Navy aircraft designation conventions are easier to decipher than NASA's stuff.

 

11 minutes ago, Clamp-o-Tron said:

I’ve got a set of hypergol configuration files that are updated for 1.7.1, as well as supporting several other mods. Still in dev, though  

 

 

Thanks for posting that.   What I am working on is pretty deep down into BDB and requires engine by engine editing.   For example once I am done, the LR87AJ5 will be hypergolic but the LR87AJ5K will be KEROLOX using the same part and the same config.   And this is all done by MM patches

 

[Clamp-o-Tron]

5 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

 

Thanks for posting that.   What I am working on is pretty deep down into BDB and requires engine by engine editing.   For example once I am done, the LR87AJ5 will be hypergolic but the LR87AJ5K will be KEROLOX using the same part and the same config.   And this is all done by MM patches

 

I do that too. All with MM patches.

Edited December 12, 2020 by Clamp-o-Tron

[Kass__XAP]

Did a Kitbash with a BDB Delta IV & Misc parts to create the Fuji H-IIA Infrastructure.

 

[CobaltWolf]

20 hours ago, CAPFlyer said:

Don't blame NASA for Douglas's problems with naming.  The only rockets that NASA ever had direct naming responsibility over were the ones they specifically ordered (aka Apollo, Space Shuttle, Constellation, and SLS).  All other rockets were existing commercial or military rockets that were modified for NASA use.  Even so - naming *was* consistent.  The change from "Thor Delta" occurred at a time when rocket designs were standardizing and the need for simplified naming was desired.  So the change was made as the Delta B came into service (the first "operational" Delta version).  However, internally, the first stage was always called the Thor until the Delta IV.  The Wikipedia article on the Delta family actually has a good chart showing the naming for the stages/tanks and their associated 4-digit numbering scheme.