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

[Jcking]

2 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

That would be cool but once you have the lander then you need the Pegasus stage, and then the probes, and the moon base, why not the Russian vulkan as well. You can see where it goes. It opens up a new can of worms

I mean the ETS lander is basically just a constellation era Altair, a lander that would be suited for a mod focused on the Constellation program.

[AmateurAstronaut1969]

18 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

That would be cool but once you have the lander then you need the Pegasus stage, and then the probes, and the moon base, why not the Russian vulkan as well. You can see where it goes. It opens up a new can of worms

Yeah it’s a rabbithole - you’ve just got to say no and stop somewhere 

16 minutes ago, Jcking said:

I mean the ETS lander is basically just a constellation era Altair, a lander that would be suited for a mod focused on the Constellation program.

No there are quite a lot of differences, enough to be noticeable 

[SpaceFace545]

10 minutes ago, AmateurAstronaut1969 said:

Yeah it’s a rabbithole - you’ve just got to say no and stop somewhere 

You know, a Pegasus stage is something I could get behind.

[davidy12]

IDK if this is still a thing or just me, but uhhh... the IVA is backwards again in the LEM

[MrStayPuft]

42 minutes ago, davidy12 said:

IDK if this is still a thing or just me, but uhhh... the IVA is backwards again in the LEM

Same here. Only noticed it with the Luner module. Also the interior is backwards. As I had the windows facing the sun away from kerbin yet in the IVA The interior is facing kerbin 

Edited September 28, 2021 by MrStayPuft

[biohazard15]

Not sure if BDB alpha bug or something in my mods:

Any help would be appreciated. I've deleted old Saturn rescale patch before installing BDB alpha, and I don't have any other mods or MM patches that affect scaling.

[Hudsonkm]

So I downloaded the remotetech configs mentioned earlier in the forums in Feb of this year.

 

Am getting these module manager errors. Would anybody happen to know what I would have to do to fix this? Or if there is a more up to date set of RT configs, and I somehow missed it?

[ERR 05:20:31.716] Error - Cannot parse variable search when replacing (%) key Mode1OmniRange = #$/MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter]/antennaPower$
[ERR 05:20:31.716] Error - Cannot parse variable search when replacing (%) key EnergyCost = #$/MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter]/packetResourceCost$
[ERR 05:20:31.717] Error - Cannot parse variable search when replacing (%) key PacketInterval = #$/MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter]/packetInterval$
[ERR 05:20:31.717] Error - Cannot parse variable search when replacing (%) key PacketSize = #$/MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter]/packetSize$

 

[biohazard15]

It has come to my attention that Pioneer 10 RTGs do not have NFE support. This fixes that:

	@PART[bluedog_Pioneer_SNAP19]:NEEDS[NearFutureElectrical]
{
  @cost *= 0.5
  !MODULE[ModuleGenerator] {}
  MODULE
  {
    name = ModuleRadioisotopeGenerator
    BasePower = 1
    HalfLife= 8.35
    EasyMode = True
  }
  @MODULE[ModuleB9PartSwitch]:HAS[#moduleID[meshSwitchExtension]]
  {
  !SUBTYPE[Extension] {}
  SUBTYPE
        {
            name = Extension
            transform = Extension
            transform = Extension.001
            addedMass = 0.014
            descriptionDetail = <b>Initial power output:</b> 1.5 Ec/s
            MODULE
            {
                IDENTIFIER
                {
                    name = ModuleRadioisotopeGenerator
                    //raycastTransformName = sunCatcher
                }
                DATA
                {
                    BasePower = 1.5
                }
            }
	        }
   }
}
	

Also, a thought: a B9 switch for SNAP-3 to make it use Po-210, as was the initial plan. While polonium is obviously not the best choice for RTG due to its short half-life (that's why they used Pu-238 instead), it offers exceptional power density. My idea is RTG that offers a truckload of Ec/sec (around 30-40, maybe even more) at the cost of being able to work for days, not years. Could be an interesting early alternative to NFE reactors and capacitors. Thoughts?

[Starhelperdude]

there is an imposter among us

Spoiler

 

Edited September 28, 2021 by Starhelperdude

[Pappystein]

20 minutes ago, Starhelperdude said:

there is an imposter among us

  Hide contents

 

Err... um....

 

 

I DIDN'T DO IT!

 

[davidy12]

NVM: Had a docking issue, didn't retract antenna XD

Edited September 28, 2021 by davidy12

[OrbitalManeuvers]

6 hours ago, biohazard15 said:

Any help would be appreciated.

I think the LEM isn't on the SLAM correctly. The legs should stick way down below the SLAM and extend down into the IU.

[CobaltWolf]

16 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

That would be cool but once you have the lander then you need the Pegasus stage, and then the probes, and the moon base, why not the Russian vulkan as well. You can see where it goes. It opens up a new can of worms

16 hours ago, Jcking said:

I mean the ETS lander is basically just a constellation era Altair, a lander that would be suited for a mod focused on the Constellation program.

My 2c/word of god on this. I'm interested in the Apollo and Saturn variants from Eyes because they're derivatives of existing stuff, just a couple new parts each. I'm less interested in making things that would be entirely from scratch, like Artemis, the Biconic, etc

 

 

12 hours ago, davidy12 said:

IDK if this is still a thing or just me, but uhhh... the IVA is backwards again in the LEM

Yeah I broke the LM again.

 

6 hours ago, biohazard15 said:

Not sure if BDB alpha bug or something in my mods:

Any help would be appreciated. I've deleted old Saturn rescale patch before installing BDB alpha, and I don't have any other mods or MM patches that affect scaling.

You need to connect the bottom of the descent stage to the SLAM, not the bottom of the engine. This was done to make it more agnostic to which engine you choose.

[jefferyharrell]

I have a question about BDB, JNSQ and MechJeb's PVG. @Zorg, since you literally wrote the book on it, I'm pinging you specifically, but all advice is welcome.

Here we have a totally ordinary Atlas V 401 carrying a two-ton payload. (It's a Scansat satellite.)

If I launch it with the default PVG settings, it gets to orbit okay, but two things about the ascent offend me: First, I pick up SERIOUS heating around 40 kilometers:

And second, by the time my Centaur gets to 100×100 km it's pitched down about 45°. So following the instructions in the wiki I tried setting Booster Pitch start to 100 m/s (from the default of 50 m/s). The result was pretty much the same. Then I tried 150 m/s, and again got pretty much the same ascent with the same problems. Then I tried setting Booster Pitch start back to 50 m/s and changing Booster Pitch rate to 0.3°/s; again, same basic ascent, with the heating around 40 km and the Centaur pitched well below the horizon at SECO.

So my question is this: What knobs should I be twiddling to try to get a more aesthetically pleasing ascent out of this rocket?  What other than Booster Pitch start and rate are useful tunable parameters? The MechJeb PVG window has a lot of buttons and dials but it's not obvious which ones would be useful to me in this situation.

Any advice is welcome. Thanks!

[OrbitalManeuvers]

2 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

You need to connect the bottom of the descent stage to the SLAM, not the bottom of the engine. This was done to make it more agnostic to which engine you choose.

btw the note about this in the part is using dark red text, which then sits against KSP's gray background, rendering it utterly illegible on my system.

[AmateurAstronaut1969]

5 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

My 2c/word of god on this. I'm interested in the Apollo and Saturn variants from Eyes because they're derivatives of existing stuff, just a couple new parts each. I'm less interested in making things that would be entirely from scratch, like Artemis, the Biconic, etc

Well I’ve taken what Zorg said seriously, and I think I’m gonna try my hand at modelling and texturing. Someone else I know can model well, and I think we are gonna try and make the Pegasus, and design it to interface with the BDB RL-10’s. I have no clue how it will go, but I hope it goes well lol

[biohazard15]

56 minutes ago, jefferyharrell said:

If I launch it with the default PVG settings, it gets to orbit okay, but two things about the ascent offend me: First, I pick up SERIOUS heating around 40 kilometers:

First of all, two-ton payload to LEO (MEO, if it's a Scansat and you want to achieve optimal orbit) is not the best payload for Atlas V, even 401. This rocket was designed to launch heavy satellites to GTO, not small stuff to LEO. It's like launching Mercury on Saturn V - you can do it, but why? For this kind of payload, Atlas II or Delta III are a good choice.

Second: too much TWR. You should do what ULA does - pull down the throttle lever. Source: https://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/default-source/rockets/atlasvusersguide2010.pdf , page 2-17 (see throttle graph).

56 minutes ago, jefferyharrell said:

And second, by the time my Centaur gets to 100×100 km it's pitched down about 45°.

This is absolutely normal in stock and low-scaled (2.5-3x) systems. Basically this means your rocket has too much TWR and overshoots the target altitude. This also means you're wasting fuel.

56 minutes ago, jefferyharrell said:

So following the instructions in the wiki I tried setting Booster Pitch start to 100 m/s (from the default of 50 m/s).

This should never be done on Atlas V. This particular instruction is meant for low-TWR rockets, like Atlas-Centaur or Saturn I/IB. Atlas V is not one of these.

Edited September 28, 2021 by biohazard15

[jefferyharrell]

9 minutes ago, biohazard15 said:

First of all, two-ton payload to LEO (MEO, if it's a Scansat and you want to achieve optimal orbit) is not the best payload for Atlas V, even 401.

For the record, this particular satellite was bound for the Mun, so the Centaur did the trans-Mun injection burn (six and a half minutes it was too). The burn finished with something like 1,500 meters per second of delta vee in the tank, so of course it was still overkill, but I like Atlas V. It's cool.

11 minutes ago, biohazard15 said:

You should do what ULA does - pull down the throttle lever.

I'll play with MechJeb's "limit acceleration" knob and see how that changes things. Thanks for the pointers!

[biohazard15]

19 minutes ago, jefferyharrell said:

The burn finished with something like 1,500 meters per second of delta vee in the tank, so of course it was still overkill, but I like Atlas V. It's cool.

Wow, that's not just overkill, that's basically another TLI burn. But yeah, Atlas V is really cool. Probably the most advanced Kerolox 1st stage ever built.

19 minutes ago, jefferyharrell said:

I'll play with MechJeb's "limit acceleration" knob and see how that changes things. Thanks for the pointers!

Try something about 35 m/s. You may want to lower it to 20 m/s or less when you're out of atmosphere. (Again, this is what actual Atlas V does - one of the reasons for throttling down is to ensure clean fairing separation)

Edited September 28, 2021 by biohazard15

[Zorg]

1 hour ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:

btw the note about this in the part is using dark red text, which then sits against KSP's gray background, rendering it utterly illegible on my system.

Er yeah, Im trying to figure out some colours that will work better. I am under the suspicion its not actually rendering the exact color specified in the RGB code though... will look into though.

1 hour ago, jefferyharrell said:

I have a question about BDB, JNSQ and MechJeb's PVG. @Zorg, since you literally wrote the book on it, I'm pinging you specifically, but all advice is welcome.

Here we have a totally ordinary Atlas V 401 carrying a two-ton payload. (It's a Scansat satellite.)

 

If I launch it with the default PVG settings, it gets to orbit okay, but two things about the ascent offend me: First, I pick up SERIOUS heating around 40 kilometers:

 

And second, by the time my Centaur gets to 100×100 km it's pitched down about 45°. So following the instructions in the wiki I tried setting Booster Pitch start to 100 m/s (from the default of 50 m/s). The result was pretty much the same. Then I tried 150 m/s, and again got pretty much the same ascent with the same problems. Then I tried setting Booster Pitch start back to 50 m/s and changing Booster Pitch rate to 0.3°/s; again, same basic ascent, with the heating around 40 km and the Centaur pitched well below the horizon at SECO.

So my question is this: What knobs should I be twiddling to try to get a more aesthetically pleasing ascent out of this rocket?  What other than Booster Pitch start and rate are useful tunable parameters? The MechJeb PVG window has a lot of buttons and dials but it's not obvious which ones would be useful to me in this situation.

Any advice is welcome. Thanks!

To add to whats already been said, if you care about the aesthetics of the ascent, and you dont want to throttle down to the point where the plumes also start to look weedy its best to choose a low TWR rocket to begin with. Atlas CELV is a good option, you can sit back and enjoy it struggle uphill, no overheating or pitch down there .

You could also run a patch to delay when aero fx appear. This is for JNSQ. I guess you could just replace AFTER[JNSQ] with FINAL to it if you are on rescaled stock or something else.

@PHYSICSGLOBALS:AFTER[JNSQ]
{
    // AeroFX
    @aeroFXStartThermalFX = 5.5 // 2.5
    @aeroFXFullThermalFX = 8.5 // 3.75
}

 

[jefferyharrell]

8 minutes ago, Zorg said:

To add to whats already been said, if you care about the aesthetics of the ascent, and you dont want to throttle down to the point where the plumes also start to look weedy its best to choose a low TWR rocket to begin with. Atlas CELV is a good option, you can sit back and enjoy it struggle uphill, no overheating or pitch down there .

I'll give that a try. Thanks!

9 minutes ago, Zorg said:

You could also run a patch to delay when aero fx appear. This is for JNSQ. I guess you could just replace AFTER[JNSQ] with FINAL to it if you are on rescaled stock or something else.

@PHYSICSGLOBALS:AFTER[JNSQ]
{
    // AeroFX
    @aeroFXStartThermalFX = 5.5 // 2.5
    @aeroFXFullThermalFX = 8.5 // 3.75
}

Can you elaborate on what the numbers mean?

[Zorg]

8 minutes ago, jefferyharrell said:

I'll give that a try. Thanks!

Can you elaborate on what the numbers mean?

Haven't a clue. Got it from someone else, JadeOfMaar possibly but cant remember for sure.

edit: well ok dont know what the number itself is exactly, could be mach? But we can guess its the velocity at which the aero shock effects and the entry plasma effects show up. The numbers in the comments are defaults possibly? 

Edited September 28, 2021 by Zorg

[jefferyharrell]

15 minutes ago, Zorg said:

Haven't a clue. Got it from someone else, JadeOfMaar possibly but cant remember for sure.

edit: well ok dont know what the number itself is exactly, could be mach? But we can guess its the velocity at which the aero shock effects and the entry plasma effects show up. The numbers in the comments are defaults possibly? 

Gotcha. I'll install it in my game and see what happens. Thanks again.

[OrbitalManeuvers]

59 minutes ago, Zorg said:

I am under the suspicion its not actually rendering the exact color specified in the RGB code though

As rendered on my system. Seems to have an average of about #792d32.

Spoiler

 

[Jso]

2 hours ago, Zorg said:

edit: well ok dont know what the number itself is exactly, could be mach? But we can guess its the velocity at which the aero shock effects and the entry plasma effects show up. The numbers in the comments are defaults possibly? 

 

2 hours ago, jefferyharrell said:

Gotcha. I'll install it in my game and see what happens. Thanks again.

It's the mach number for the reentry effects. The default numbers are way low because otherwise you'd never get reentry effects in a stock system since you're moving too slow for plasma to appear. That's not really a problem in a 2.5x system so you can bump it up to more realish numbers.

This is mine:

@PHYSICSGLOBALS:Final
{
	// AeroFX
    @aeroFXStartThermalFX = 7.3 // 2.5
    @aeroFXFullThermalFX = 10 // 3.75
	
	// Temp warnings
	@temperatureGaugeHighlightThreshold = 0.95 // 0.75
}

 

Just to add about your ascent... 100x100km is kind of skimming the atmosphere. You'll have a less dramatic climb going to 150x150km. Also with very little practice you can do a direct ascent to the Mun. With tons of spare deltav for corrections burns it's especially easy.