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

[birdog357]

Just to make sure I've got this going the right way, on the offset COM capsules, the lift vector is down through the kerbals feet right? So to increase the downrange I have my head down?

Edited August 18, 2021 by birdog357
Reversed directions

[Entr8899]

13 hours ago, Zorg said:

 

The Star 37 and Star 48 were rescaled in BDB 1.8 to exact IRL dimensions x 0.625. This takes them away from existing stack diameters but was important to do to resolve scaling issues with probes such as Clementine which are built around these motors.

since they're not cylindrical stack parts we didnt feel the size difference to stack sizes was a big problem.

Dev branches and even the github master should always be considered at your own risk.

Thank you for the explanation. Please could you consider adding correctly sized upper and lower adapters/autoshrouds for them?

[Zorg]

6 hours ago, birdog357 said:

@Zorg I think I may have found my issue with getting the science out of the KH-10. Neither the Gemini nor the MOL lab allow in vessel science transfer. For reference I pulled up the Keyhole recovery pod which does work and saw this

{
		name = ModuleScienceContainer

		reviewActionName = #autoLOC_502201 //#autoLOC_502201 = Review Stored Data
		storeActionName = #autoLOC_502202 //#autoLOC_502202 = Store Experiments
		evaOnlyStorage = True // i.e. can nearby regular vessels also do this, or EVA only
		storageRange = 1.3
		canBeTransferredToInVessel = True
		canTransferInVessel = True
		showStatus = True
	}

While Gemini has

{
		name = ModuleScienceContainer
		reviewActionName = Review Stored Data
		storeActionName = Store Experiments
		evaOnlyStorage = True
		storageRange = 2.0
	}

and MOL has

{
		name = ModuleScienceContainer
		reviewActionName = Review Data
		storeActionName = Store Experiments
		collectActionName = Take Data
		evaOnlyStorage = True
		storageRange = 2
		allowRepeatedSubjects = True
	}

Do these 3 lines need to be added?

		canBeTransferredToInVessel = True
		canTransferInVessel = True
		showStatus = True

 

Thanks for looking into this, will add these in.

[Zorg]

6 hours ago, Entr8899 said:

Thank you for the explanation. Please could you consider adding correctly sized upper and lower adapters/autoshrouds for them?

This isnt really a priority right now but might look at cleaning those up at some point.

[DaveyJ576]

12 hours ago, birdog357 said:

Just to make sure I've got this going the right way, on the offset COM capsules, the lift vector is down through the kerbals feet right? So to increase the downrange I have my head down?

Nope, just the opposite. Point feet down, lift, Point feet right, move to right. Point feet left, move to left. Point feet up, move down. I have tested this with Gemini on seven flights and so far it seems to have little discernible effect. In real life however, it enabled very accurate landings. I am playing 1.11.2 on a stock Kerbin. 

Edited August 18, 2021 by DaveyJ576
Addition

[CobaltWolf]

13 hours ago, birdog357 said:

Just to make sure I've got this going the right way, on the offset COM capsules, the lift vector is down through the kerbals feet right? So to increase the downrange I have my head down?+

3 hours ago, DaveyJ576 said:

Nope, just the opposite. Point feet down, lift, Point feet right, move to right. Point feet left, move to left. Point feet up, move down. I have tested this with Gemini on seven flights and so far it seems to have little discernible effect. In real life however, it enabled very accurate landings. I am playing 1.11.2 on a stock Kerbin. 

The correct reentry orientation is with the crew upside down.

 

 

[septemberWaves]

Just did this with Principia. I have no idea how they planned the real life trajectory in such a way that the spin-stabilized probe would be pointing the right way that the retrograde motor could have the potential to put it into a lunar orbit; the orientation was very much radial by the time I got to the Mun even with a pretty good trajectory (though I was able to use it to make a correction and get a closer flyby). It's certainly an interesting mission to fly; the margins on the launch vehicle for getting to a low parking orbit are incredibly thin (in JNSQ that is), but fortunately once in orbit the solid motors can easily send it on the way to the Mun.

Edited August 18, 2021 by septemberWaves

[OrbitalManeuvers]

3 hours ago, septemberWaves said:

the margins on the launch vehicle for getting to a low parking orbit are incredibly thin

i thought P1 was direct ascent?

[CobaltWolf]

3 hours ago, septemberWaves said:

Just did this with Principia. I have no idea how they planned the real life trajectory in such a way that the spin-stabilized probe would be pointing the right way that the retrograde motor could have the potential to put it into a lunar orbit; the orientation was very much radial by the time I got to the Mun even with a pretty good trajectory (though I was able to use it to make a correction and get a closer flyby). It's certainly an interesting mission to fly; the margins on the launch vehicle for getting to a low parking orbit are incredibly thin (in JNSQ that is), but fortunately once in orbit the solid motors can easily send it on the way to the Mun.

31 minutes ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:

i thought P1 was direct ascent?

I think my overall takeaway from the early Pioneer missions (including the Atlas-Able ones), is they required a level of calculation that simply can't be expected in KSP.

[VostokV5]

How can I make the ejection force of the fairings a little weaker? They also seem to eject upwards and then sideways. I'd also want to get rid of that upward momentum and just have it separate sideways, just like how the stock fairings work. Any way to do this?

[Pappystein]

27 minutes ago, VostokV5 said:

How can I make the ejection force of the fairings a little weaker? They also seem to eject upwards and then sideways. I'd also want to get rid of that upward momentum and just have it separate sideways, just like how the stock fairings work. Any way to do this?

I am not the dev so this is just guesswork... But it is educated guesswork given years of playing the game.    They eject upwards slightly to clear the rocket and prevent a re-strike.   AKA to reduce explosions on your rocket from striking the rocket before getting far enough away.

AKA you WANT them to eject slightly forward.

I will add that the Stock fairing base is rounded corners not sharp corners like the BDB fairing bases.  

 

Edited August 18, 2021 by Pappystein

[Zorg]

15 hours ago, VostokV5 said:

How can I make the ejection force of the fairings a little weaker? They also seem to eject upwards and then sideways. I'd also want to get rid of that upward momentum and just have it separate sideways, just like how the stock fairings work. Any way to do this?

You can patch the "deploySpeed" value in ModuleSimpleAdjustableFairing but I dont know if a way to change the deploy behaviour in general.

 

Preview of the upcoming ETS European Research Module. I decided to take more inspiration directly from the IRL shuttle spacelab rather than try to follow the ETS artwork exactly. The handrails will be available in both gold and blue. Both endcaps can be switched between 0.625m, 0.9375m and 1.25m. The module itself will have a diameter of 3.125m. This together with the airlock module will complete the ETS Spacelab.

Textures still WIP.

 

[Kochi]

ive tested the new apollo and skylab revamps and i noticed something that skylab is way too light since the apollo stack ingame is around 19 tons and the ingame skylab is 27 tons compared to the 50 tons of the apollo stack irl and 70-90 tons of skylab IRL

[Jcking]

Just now, Kochi said:

ive tested the new apollo and skylab revamps and i noticed something that skylab is way too light since the apollo stack ingame is around 19 tons and the ingame skylab is 27 tons compared to the 50 tons of the apollo stack irl and 70-90 tons of skylab IRL

This mod is scaled for a 2.5x kerbin sized solar system. As such, the mass (and capabilities of the rockets and payloads) are more limited than IRL.

[Kochi]

3 minutes ago, Jcking said:

This mod is scaled for a 2.5x kerbin sized solar system. As such, the mass (and capabilities of the rockets and payloads) are more limited than IRL.

its scaled for 2.7 JNSQ aka what im using and im saying its too light bc i can send skylab to the moon with that weight

 

[Kass__XAP]

9 minutes ago, Kochi said:

ive tested the new apollo and skylab revamps and i noticed something that skylab is way too light since the apollo stack ingame is around 19 tons and the ingame skylab is 27 tons compared to the 50 tons of the apollo stack irl and 70-90 tons of skylab IRL

It's an Alpha, it isn't complete and the parts still need balancing right now.

[Kochi]

Just now, Pioneer_Steve said:

It's an Alpha, it isn't complete and the parts still need balancing right now.

ye i know i have another problem with the saturn rescale but im testing rn see if its my side but i know its still in alpha 

 

(this problems maybe be fixed with the new saturn) and the saturn rescale patch is kinda broken since the new skylab is for default 4.3m wide it doasnt fit with the 5.6 saturn and using the patch to scale it to 6.4 makes skylab go to 5.1 ish i fixed it removing the scale of skylab parts 
and the IVB adaptor cant fit LM and CSM  just making this aware to zorg and cobaltwolf

[SpaceFace545]

34 minutes ago, Kochi said:

ive tested the new apollo and skylab revamps and i noticed something that skylab is way too light since the apollo stack ingame is around 19 tons and the ingame skylab is 27 tons compared to the 50 tons of the apollo stack irl and 70-90 tons of skylab IRL

The parts are really just in with placeholder configs right now. 

[Zorg]

42 minutes ago, Kochi said:

ye i know i have another problem with the saturn rescale but im testing rn see if its my side but i know its still in alpha 

 

(this problems maybe be fixed with the new saturn) and the saturn rescale patch is kinda broken since the new skylab is for default 4.3m wide it doasnt fit with the 5.6 saturn and using the patch to scale it to 6.4 makes skylab go to 5.1 ish i fixed it removing the scale of skylab parts 
and the IVB adaptor cant fit LM and CSM  just making this aware to zorg and cobaltwolf

Appreciate the comments but just keep in mind the apollo/saturn/skylab branch is not really intended for the general public. Though you are welcome to try it, it primarily exists for the BDB team to have access to each others work so just take things as they are. Currently the only thing we are testing in those branches are very basic functionality (do animations work, are the transforms correct etc) and art.

Balancing work will begin only once the Saturn parts are in game and JSO (who handles the balancing) can start their thing. No effort is being made for compatibility with the Saturn rescale patch since it is meant to be deprecated once the new Saturn parts are available. 

Once parts are in semi stable and "playable" state they will make their way to the master branch for polishing and broader testing including balance feedback before final release.

Edited August 19, 2021 by Zorg

[Kochi]

10 minutes ago, Zorg said:

Appreciate the comments but just keep in mind the apollo/saturn/skylab branch is not really intended for the general public. Though you are welcome to try it, it primarily exists for the BDB team to have access to each others work so just take things as they are. Currently the only thing we are testing in those branches are very basic functionality (do animations work, are the transforms correct etc) and art.

Balancing work will begin only once the Saturn parts are in game and JSO (who handles the balancing) can start their thing. No effort is being made for compatibility with the Saturn rescale patch since it is meant to be deprecated once the new Saturn parts are available. 

Once parts are in semi stable and "playable" state they will make their way to the master branch for polishing and broader testing including balance feedback before final release.

oh im sorry then 

[Zorg]

1 minute ago, Kochi said:

oh im sorry then 

No problem, we are glad people are excited about the new parts  Its just gonna take a while for things to come together.

[septemberWaves]

Mercury Lab is... interesting. A ludicrously bad idea to have an EVA on a single-person spacecraft, but the concept is intriguing and it's fun to have access to it.

Getting the Ranger rough landing probe to the surface safely took several more quicksaves than I would've liked...

The amount of effort the BDB team goes to with all of these parts is impressive. Looking forward to the eventual Saturn revamps.

[TaintedLion]

58 minutes ago, septemberWaves said:

Mercury Lab is... interesting. A ludicrously bad idea to have an EVA on a single-person spacecraft, but the concept is intriguing and it's fun to have access to it.

The original concept was actually for an inflatable tunnel between the lab and the Mercury, meaning an EVA wouldn't be necessary.

 

[Pappystein]

1 hour ago, TaintedLion said:

The original concept was actually for an inflatable tunnel between the lab and the Mercury, meaning an EVA wouldn't be necessary.

 

As TaintedLion pointed out.. .Inflatable tube... notice the flat metal plate ABOVE the tube?   That would be jettisoned with the tube. 

I am guessing to make an animated part that "attaches" to the side of the Mercury capsule and releases with the lab... AND gives passthrough capabilities to the crew would be monumental effort for minimal gain

 

Also notice how it shows an Agena A tank not an Agena B tank.  

[Pappystein]

5 hours ago, Zorg said:

You can patch the "deploySpeed" value in ModuleSimpleAdjustableFairing but I dont know if a way to change the deploy behaviour in general.

 

Preview of the upcoming ETS European Research Module. I decided to take more inspiration directly from the IRL shuttle spacelab rather than try to follow the ETS artwork exactly. The handrails will be available in both gold and blue. Both endcaps can be switched between 0.625m, 0.9375m and 1.25m. The module itself will have a diameter of 3.125m. This together with the airlock module will complete the ETS Spacelab.

Textures still WIP.

 

QUICK before anyone steps on it.    Someone find my JAW it just fell through the floor!

 

 

Thanks for considering all three docking-port sizes we may want to attach to this part.

Excluding some wacky out there concepts for the 4.25m Skylab (like the S-II derived Skylab for example)  I think you have hit Just about everything.  At an amazing detail level.

Are you planning on doing a new Venus Flyby module (or is someone else?)     I could see an "altered" Venus Flyby module being used for ETS instead of the Skylab identical parts.