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

[DaveyJ576]

So curiosity got the better of me, and I downloaded the revamp branch to my Stock 1.11.2 game. FWIW, I also ran into an issue with the detachable version of the SLA fairings. Once on orbit with the S-IVB/LM/CSM stack I initiated the T&D maneuver. As soon as I hit the decouple button all four panels exploded outward, but one of them dragged the CSM around hard to the left and it very nearly collided with the LM, still stowed in the S-IVB. It was like a mini Kraken attack. I reloaded from a save twice more but got the same result each time. 
 

On the next mission I tried the hinged SLA and it worked perfectly. No LM on that mission. I dialed back on the detach force to 40% and perhaps that accounts for it. On the first mission the detach force was at 100%. 
 

I will try again with the first scenario to see if it repeats. 

[Adam-Kerman]

16 minutes ago, davidy12 said:

1. Wait, there were 4 flags on the Saturn V?

2. IF this would become a regular LV (IE: in some timeline where we pulled out of Vietnam/JFK survived or whatever, I think they would have removed the Ullage motors on the Interstage).

1. looks like it in pictures

2. meh, i guess...?

[SpaceFace545]

22 minutes ago, davidy12 said:

1. Wait, there were 4 flags on the Saturn V?

2. IF this would become a regular LV (IE: in some timeline where we pulled out of Vietnam/JFK survived or whatever, I think they would have removed the Ullage motors on the Interstage).

You mean the necessary ullage motors that push the rocket away from the spent S-IC and more importantly settle the propellant so the engines can fire.

[davidy12]

4 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

You mean the necessary ullage motors that push the rocket away from the spent S-IC and more importantly settle the propellant so the engines can fire.

No on the interstage. They removed them on Apollo 15 Onwards

PS: @CobaltWolf updated the SLA panels. They're different from V1 SLA where they didn't have any engines to fire to push them a way and they went apart naturally. BUT honestly, I like it. Gives it a more Kerbal flare to it. 

Edited October 8, 2021 by davidy12

[derega16]

1 hour ago, davidy12 said:

2. IF this would become a regular LV (IE: in some timeline where we pulled out of Vietnam/JFK survived or whatever, I think they would have removed the Ullage motors on the Interstage).

I'm afraid that JFK not died timeline it is very likely that moon landing, atleast as we known, might get cancelled.

[OrbitalManeuvers]

This was too cool not to share. Topic: Venus flyby mission. In spoiler tag for the uninterested.

Spoiler

This first image is from the NASA mission plan. I have marked 3 significant positions - Venus (orange) and Earth (blue) at launch, and Venus at flyby (green).

This is my KSP tracking station, colored stars overlaid in the same position:

Here's the KSP screen at 65% opacity over the NASA document:

Kind of shocking that it's possible to get this close, tbh.

The NASA flight plan calls for LEO, then transposition and docking, then the ejection burn.

I'm using KSRSS at 2.5x. I launched from Kourou and tried to time my launch so that my equatorial DN would be positioned at/near the ejection burn point. PVG to 130km circular orbit on only the first two stages. I completed the transposition and docking and the rest of the prep for cruise phase within the first revolution so the ejection burn was done at the start of the 2nd revolution. Default boiloff settings.

Took this crappy screencap immediately after completing the burn. Check out my fuel margins. I have an encounter, so I only used 1 ignition and then converted to the lab and extended the solar panels, and now everyone is taking a nap. 

 

 

[davidy12]

5 minutes ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:

This was too cool not to share. Topic: Venus flyby mission. In spoiler tag for the uninterested.

  Hide contents

This first image is from the NASA mission plan. I have marked 3 significant positions - Venus (orange) and Earth (blue) at launch, and Venus at flyby (green).

This is my KSP tracking station, colored stars overlaid in the same position:

Here's the KSP screen at 65% opacity over the NASA document:

Kind of shocking that it's possible to get this close, tbh.

The NASA flight plan calls for LEO, then transposition and docking, then the ejection burn.

I'm using KSRSS at 2.5x. I launched from Kourou and tried to time my launch so that my equatorial DN would be positioned at/near the ejection burn point. PVG to 130km circular orbit on only the first two stages. I completed the transposition and docking and the rest of the prep for cruise phase within the first revolution so the ejection burn was done at the start of the 2nd revolution. Default boiloff settings.

Took this crappy screencap immediately after completing the burn. Check out my fuel margins. I have an encounter, so I only used 1 ignition and then converted to the lab and extended the solar panels, and now everyone is taking a nap. 

 

 

Why are the ullage motors still attached?

Also, IIRC, I think the CSM in the manned venus Flyby would have been shorter and have (I COULD BE WRONG but I think @Zorg made a mount like this) 2 LEM Engines (Block IV In our timeline, not ETS). 

Oh and uhhh... Thought I'd show this. First one I ever got into orbit

MOS LAB

Also finally got the text decal on Conformal Decals working on Gemini so I can reproduce the Kerbalized Labels. 

[OrbitalManeuvers]

14 minutes ago, davidy12 said:

Why are the ullage motors still attached?

I still had two pairs on this launch. Normally I would underfuel the first two stages to force the SIVB J2 to be needed for circularizing.

Edited October 8, 2021 by OrbitalManeuvers

[Pappystein]

2 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

You mean the necessary ullage motors that push the rocket away from the spent S-IC and more importantly settle the propellant so the engines can fire.

it was covered a few pages ago. Those weren't needed because The Saturn V stack was still in an acceleration state and thus the fuel is completely fine and fully settled.  

HOWEVER   For the purposes of avoiding an abort I would personally keep 2 or 4 of them

 

[davidy12]

19 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

it was covered a few pages ago. Those weren't needed because The Saturn V stack was still in an acceleration state and thus the fuel is completely fine and fully settled.  

HOWEVER   For the purposes of avoiding an abort I would personally keep 2 or 4 of them

 

I mean, if there was a catastrophic failure in the 1st stage, ullage motors or not, the Entire Booster was RUD. 

[CobaltWolf]

S-II stretches and 6x F-1 S-1C

[SpaceFace545]

4 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

S-II stretches and 6x F-1 S-1C

Its the gift that keeps on giving

[Beccab]

On 10/6/2021 at 4:44 PM, Invaderchaos said:

That being said, eventually I want to make the fairing base and decoupler for MDD Barbarian

Very very late reply but I thought of this only now, @Invaderchaos does that include the Zenith Star? Non functional obviously, but it's still a very large interesting satellite

[davidy12]

ANDDDD... The LM IVA is broken again...
EDIT: NVM. Reverted to VAB and it's fine.

Edited October 8, 2021 by davidy12

[flamerboy67664]

2 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

S-II stretches and 6x F-1 S-1C

Awesome work guys, however is it possible for the SLA to have an lengthened version, however fictional it may be? long tank Saturns with their humongous payload capacity are extremely awesome and interesting but i find it frustrating in how I am only limited to only functionally the LEM being put under the CSM, limiting what I can bring up with it and what to do with Apollo. yep i know about procedural fairings interstage adapters, or the stock proc fairings, but i'd like for more something more within the BDB art style or like BDB SAF fairings, even if they don't work like SAF, we have B9 partswitch for lengths even for tankages i mean. even a half S-IVB or S-IVB length extended SLA would be awesome, my 2c

cheers

Edited October 8, 2021 by flamerboy67664

[Zorg]

5 hours ago, davidy12 said:

Also, IIRC, I think the CSM in the manned venus Flyby would have been shorter and have (I COULD BE WRONG but I think @Zorg made a mount like this) 2 LEM Engines (Block IV In our timeline, not ETS

We don’t have a dual mount yet but should be coming at some point. ETS block III SM is probably too short so we may need an intermediate length one for VFB as well. 

[derega16]

About tank length, will S-IV variants will have S-II (C-2) length? they are the same diameter just much longer. Also S-III too.

Edited October 8, 2021 by derega16

[JoeSheridan]

2 hours ago, Zorg said:

ETS block III SM is probably too short so we may need an intermediate length one for VFB as well. 

I don´t think that there will be another additional SM length from the flyby because the ETS Block IV / Block V SM seems to be a little longer than Block III too.... and that´s already planned if i recall that right. That would fit nicely and would "only" need another texture tops.

1 hour ago, derega16 said:

About tank length, will S-IV variants will have S-II (C-2) length? they are the same diameter just much longer. Also S-III too.

And please: add an option to insulate the S-II heavily... or even give us some power intense active cooling.... yeah: I want to recreate the Voyage mars mission, at least the transfer and orbital hardware. The landing stage from that one is cool but that would be toooo crazy to make. So that would need another, probably independent launched, lander from my side.

[derega16]

2 hours ago, JoeSheridan said:

And please: add an option to insulate the S-II heavily... or even give us some power intense active cooling.... 

IIRC cobalt said he might do the later, but I have no clue on how it will be implemented.

 

Insulated version I think maybe when revamping Saturn MLV, as a revised version change to copper S-IE and SOFI S-VIC,D instead of SOFI S-IE and painted S-VIC,D

 

 

Edited October 8, 2021 by derega16

[davidy12]

1 hour ago, derega16 said:

IIRC cobalt said he might do the later, but I have no clue on how it will be implemented.

 

Insulated version I think maybe when revamping Saturn MLV, as a revised version change to copper S-IE and SOFI S-VIC,D instead of SOFI S-IE and painted S-VIC,D

 

 

IDK much about coding, but I think you could just add a toggle option to turn off boiloff.

[Jcking]

12 hours ago, davidy12 said:

Also, IIRC, I think the CSM in the manned venus Flyby would have been shorter and have (I COULD BE WRONG but I think @Zorg made a mount like this) 2 LEM Engines (Block IV In our timeline, not ETS).

 

From the Bellcom Manned Venus Flyby Study: The CSM would have replaced the fuel cells with 850 lbs of silver-zinc batteries, the SPS was replaced by two LM descent engines, the radiators were removed (cooling and electrical power was provided by an umbilical connected to the ESM), and propellant has been decreased to 19,000 lbs total down from 42,300 lbs (this is for main and RCS). The shortened length and conical structure depicted are not described in any detail in the report, but it is possible that the conical structure is part of the SLA adapter (since the study calls for keeping the ESM wrapped in the SLA for micrometeorite protection, while the shortened length was something allowed for by the decrease in propellants and replacement of fuel cells.

Edited October 8, 2021 by Jcking

[Pappystein]

11 hours ago, davidy12 said:

I mean, if there was a catastrophic failure in the 1st stage, ullage motors or not, the Entire Booster was RUD. 

I was thinking more abrupt thrust cutoff just before MECO was planned.   There was enough reserves in that state for the mission to continue.       You know like a slow fuel leak that did not involved an explosion... or miss-loading the fuels and not having enough oxidizer or RP-1... or lastly.   A Fuel valve suddenly shutting when it should have remained open.

54 minutes ago, Jcking said:

From the Bellcom Manned Venus Flyby Study: The CSM would have replaced the fuel cells with 850 lbs of silver-zinc batteries, the SPS was replaced by two LM descent engines, the radiators were removed (cooling and electrical power was provided by an umbilical connected to the ESM), and propellant has been decreased to 19,000 lbs total down from 42,300 lbs (this is for main and RCS). The shortened length and conical structure depicted are not described in any detail in the report, but it is possible that the conical structure is part of the SLA adapter (since the study calls for keeping the ESM wrapped in the SLA for micrometeorite protection, while the shortened length was something allowed for by the decrease in propellants and replacement of fuel cells.

Does that Article cover the Eros flyby as well?   IDR who did the combined Venus/Eros flyby report but it used a larger 4.25m ksp scale SM with 3 LMAE engines, and an appropriately bigger CM (not Big Apollo.)    I have lost/misplaced or otherwise not saved my Eros reports I downloaded....  

[Zorg]

33 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

I was thinking more abrupt thrust cutoff just before MECO was planned.   There was enough reserves in that state for the mission to continue.       You know like a slow fuel leak that did not involved an explosion... or miss-loading the fuels and not having enough oxidizer or RP-1... or lastly.   A Fuel valve suddenly shutting when it should have remained open.

Does that Article cover the Eros flyby as well?   IDR who did the combined Venus/Eros flyby report but it used a larger 4.25m ksp scale SM with 3 LMAE engines, and an appropriately bigger CM (not Big Apollo.)    I have lost/misplaced or otherwise not saved my Eros reports I downloaded....  

No the Bellcom study is just Venus, was my main reference for what we have in BDB.

[Jcking]

14 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

Does that Article cover the Eros flyby as well?   IDR who did the combined Venus/Eros flyby report but it used a larger 4.25m ksp scale SM with 3 LMAE engines, and an appropriately bigger CM (not Big Apollo.)    I have lost/misplaced or otherwise not saved my Eros reports I downloaded....  

No, the only Eros flyby CSM I know of uses two RL10A-3s and a 4.25 ksp scale cryogenic SM with an enlarged apollo derived capsule.

https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3070&context=space-congress-proceedings&httpsredir=1&referer=

[CobaltWolf]

9 hours ago, flamerboy67664 said:

Awesome work guys, however is it possible for the SLA to have an lengthened version, however fictional it may be? long tank Saturns with their humongous payload capacity are extremely awesome and interesting but i find it frustrating in how I am only limited to only functionally the LEM being put under the CSM, limiting what I can bring up with it and what to do with Apollo. yep i know about procedural fairings interstage adapters, or the stock proc fairings, but i'd like for more something more within the BDB art style or like BDB SAF fairings, even if they don't work like SAF, we have B9 partswitch for lengths even for tankages i mean. even a half S-IVB or S-IVB length extended SLA would be awesome, my 2c

So, backing up - the biggest issue with the SLA is that the slope begins at the base. That means making extended versions of it gets weird kinda quick? I know that I'd like to make one that's vertical, so for landers and such you only need to worry about the cylindrical envelop and can ignore the slope.

Past that, there's the large SAF fairings. I can't speak to whether any of those will include some sort of mounting option for the CSM - Zorg, is adding a B9 switch to make a 2.5m hole in the nose of the SAF fairings possible? Might be the best solution.

 

7 hours ago, derega16 said:

About tank length, will S-IV variants will have S-II (C-2) length? they are the same diameter just much longer. Also S-III too.

S-IVB will have length variants up to 2x the original length. I would like to make sure there is a 4x J-2 mount for it as well. I know technically its supposed to be S-IV diameter but...

 

5 hours ago, JoeSheridan said:

I don´t think that there will be another additional SM length from the flyby because the ETS Block IV / Block V SM seems to be a little longer than Block III too.... and that´s already planned if i recall that right. That would fit nicely and would "only" need another texture tops.

I am planning on doing the Block IV SM this time around. In general I'd like to make sure there's some amount of choice for the Apollo SMs.

 

5 hours ago, JoeSheridan said:

And please: add an option to insulate the S-II heavily... or even give us some power intense active cooling.... yeah: I want to recreate the Voyage mars mission, at least the transfer and orbital hardware. The landing stage from that one is cool but that would be toooo crazy to make. So that would need another, probably independent launched, lander from my side.

4 hours ago, derega16 said:

IIRC cobalt said he might do the later, but I have no clue on how it will be implemented.

Insulated version I think maybe when revamping Saturn MLV, as a revised version change to copper S-IE and SOFI S-VIC,D instead of SOFI S-IE and painted S-VIC,D

2 hours ago, davidy12 said:

IDK much about coding, but I think you could just add a toggle option to turn off boiloff.

Just turning off boiloff is for cowards. We'll come up with a way to actively manage it using some sort of external radiator parts, I think.