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

[1124max]

@CobaltWolf regarding the previously mentioned issue with the aj-260 part switch I have noticed a similar issue with the f-1v and f-1av having the same performance values as the f-1a.

[Friznit]

17 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

Aside from the Saturn C-2 having two completely different versions (pre Silverstein and post Silverstein commission) and the missing NASA S-III from said C-2 and the S-IVC   that is a good collection of data there Friznit

Yes the ETS S-IVC should really be the S-IVD      NASA designed/designated a S-IVC as a 14.7 (ksp scale) meter long stage with a single J-2S engine.   That would latter be rolled into the MLV as the MS-IVB-1A or -3 (at 14.67m KSP scale)    Please note lengths be very subjective in space documents so... 

 

I am going to, this weekend, submit a FOIA for the Prelim design of the Saturn C-2 from 1960 to hopefully get more insight and design information on the Saturn S-III stage.

 

Yep, the C-series table is mostly from the usual interweb source, I've not gone through the source docs to correct it all yet.  I need to add all the early INT stuff, then figure out a way to simplify everything down to something accessible to a KSP player who just wants to build the bloody things!

[Starhelperdude]

I've encountered some problems with INT-17:

-If I replace the HG-3s with RL-20s on the first stage, the TWR is ~0.8-0.9 (this factors in the tank stretches, a completely unstretched INT-17 [which I call INT-17A, which is entirely made up by me] flies well with just RL-20

-J-2T400K works effectively on the streched INT-17 [which I call INT-17B, also entirely made up], but IIRC (please correct me if I'm wrong) HG-3 will be removed at some point, and since J-2T400K uses a HG-3 powerhead it would make sense (atleast to me) to also remove J-2T400K

-Sadly, J-2T and J-2T-250K feature a SL performance too low to effectively use them on INT-17(B)

so, I've came up with 2 fictional INT-17 variants as I mentioned

-INT-17A: Standart tank lengths, only uses RL-20

-INT-17B: Streched, uses J-2T400Ks on the 1st stage and 1 J-2T400K or J-2T250K on the 2nd stage

 

[CobaltWolf]

10 minutes ago, Starhelperdude said:

I've encountered some problems with INT-17:

Yeah... as far as I can tell, it was a pretty marginal LV that they stopped looking into pretty quickly. Boosting it solves some of the issues but not all of them.

I don't know why we'd remove the J-2T 400K?

 

56 minutes ago, 1124max said:

@CobaltWolf regarding the previously mentioned issue with the aj-260 part switch I have noticed a similar issue with the f-1v and f-1av having the same performance values as the f-1a.

Uh... y'know, I might not have even put in new performance numbers, I was so busy dealing with some other issues that part was giving me.

[Pappystein]

16 minutes ago, Starhelperdude said:

I've encountered some problems with INT-17:

-If I replace the HG-3s with RL-20s on the first stage, the TWR is ~0.8-0.9 (this factors in the tank stretches, a completely unstretched INT-17 [which I call INT-17A, which is entirely made up by me] flies well with just RL-20

-J-2T400K works effectively on the streched INT-17 [which I call INT-17B, also entirely made up], but IIRC (please correct me if I'm wrong) HG-3 will be removed at some point, and since J-2T400K uses a HG-3 powerhead it would make sense (atleast to me) to also remove J-2T400K

-Sadly, J-2T and J-2T-250K feature a SL performance too low to effectively use them on INT-17(B)

so, I've came up with 2 fictional INT-17 variants as I mentioned

-INT-17A: Standart tank lengths, only uses RL-20

-INT-17B: Streched, uses J-2T400Ks on the 1st stage and 1 J-2T400K or J-2T250K on the 2nd stage

 

INT-17 is a "Paper Rocket" not meant to actually fly.    ALSO the program ALWAYS ran it in their simulations at like 75% S-II fuel load and 80% SIVB fuel load

You are also using the 7 engine mount yes?

also thanks for using my J-2T-400K patch

RE removal of the J-2T-400K,   That is my flavor text.  The one document that covers it does not say where the extra power came from and I *ASSUMED* that it was from a HG-3 Turbo pump assembly/powerhead.

Edited November 12, 2021 by Pappystein

[Spaceman.Spiff]

4 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

RE removal of the J-2T-400K,   That is my flavor text.  The one document that covers it does not say where the extra power came from and I *ASSUMED* that it was from a HG-3 Turbo pump assembly/powerhead.

Well now that we have more "real" HG-3 alternatives, could it be speculated that the pumps are RL-20 or XLR-129 derived?

[Pappystein]

21 minutes ago, Spaceman.Spiff said:

Well now that we have more "real" HG-3 alternatives, could it be speculated that the pumps are RL-20 or XLR-129 derived?

while a good idea,   J-2 is a Rocketdyne engine and RL20 and XLR-129 are both Pratt and Whitney.   It is safe to say that the J-2T-400K needs a lot of TLC (I can actually reduce part count by creating a engine switch to add it to the standard J-2T-200/250)  

The performance would stay the same.  But one less part to filter through (I am likely going to be doing the same to the LR87-AJ-11 for the AJ-11A of the Titan IV.)    I haven't decided how far down the rabbit hole I want to dive with my adendum patches in the extras folder

Just nice to see someone using one of my patches once and a while

 

[Zorg]

A really speculative configuration  for BDB_Extras that meets the upper end of the HG-3 study parameters (300k to 400k lbf thrust) would be a large bell XLR129, final production SSME config. That is to say during the SSME competition the XLR129 based P&W model had components tested at 350k thrust, at the time the competition called for 400k lbf. The 350k config is represented in BDB main but if we speculate that P&W won the competition under those conditions it seems realistic they could have met the thrust target.

ps. They lost on the basis they could not match the 500k + revised target and it seems questionable they could have achieved that but 400k seems feasible.

Edited November 12, 2021 by Zorg

[Kass__XAP]

Peacekeeper Missile Action! @Invaderchaosdid such a beautiful job with the new textures.

[Beccab]

6 minutes ago, Pioneer_Steve said:

Peacekeeper Missile Action! @Invaderchaosdid such a beautiful job with the new textures.

Peace maintanied, 10/10

[OrbitalManeuvers]

In non-Saturn, but still lunar, news ...  I enjoy flying anything Delta, so this was an interesting mission.

I did have an issue, though.

If I'm not mistaken (haha slim chance) the TLI in this mission is started on the Delta upper stage, and finished on the Staara 37. I arrived at this conclusion just because neither of them have enough dV alone. So based on that assumption, the issue I had is that the probe doesn't have a Reversed control point. So the Delta upper stage is in control at the start of the TLI, but then when the separation happened, I completely lost everything about the maneuver. Switching control points mid-burn AND dealing with the control direction being reversed proved impossible for me to complete the burn. So, I added a reversed control point to the probe, and did the TLI with the probe control reversed and in control of the entire TLI. Then I set it back to Normal and did the retro burn facing prograde. Criticism welcome  but couldn't figure out another way to pull this off.

 

 

 

[KeaKaka]

There seems to be an issue with the Pulgasari-VSIS 1.5m Interstage, when the 1/4 variant is selected there appears to be a gap when a part is placed on top, like so:

[Guest]

Skylab B just gained a new friend, a bespoke Salyut station.

[Taco Salad]

Hot diggity damn I Love kitbashing with this mod. Super excited for some of the stuff I've seen here like the stage-and-a-half Saturn, so of course I'm gonna ask the probably dumb question of when do y'all think we'll get to play with these new toys?


 

[Entr8899]

6 minutes ago, Taco Salad said:

Hot diggity damn I Love kitbashing with this mod. Super excited for some of the stuff I've seen here like the stage-and-a-half Saturn, so of course I'm gonna ask the probably dumb question of when do y'all think we'll get to play with these new toys?


 

You can play with them right now, by downloading the dev branch.

[Taco Salad]

Oh sick. Thanks dude.

[Jcking]

(The Apollo Saturn branch to be specific).

[Taco Salad]

3 minutes ago, Jcking said:

(The Apollo Saturn branch to be specific).

Thanks, was about to ask where to find the branch. 

[Taco Salad]

Someone has probably already brought it up, buuuut, would a deployable wing Gemini be considered? Gliding a capsule back down to the desert runway would be fun, and I'm sure with the lego-ability most of the parts here have that I'd be sticking it onto as much stuff as I feasibly could. I'd check if this was already brought up and responded to, but I have no clue how to search just this thread.

[SpaceFace545]

6 minutes ago, Taco Salad said:

Someone has probably already brought it up, buuuut, would a deployable wing Gemini be considered? Gliding a capsule back down to the desert runway would be fun, and I'm sure with the lego-ability most of the parts here have that I'd be sticking it onto as much stuff as I feasibly could. I'd check if this was already brought up and responded to, but I have no clue how to search just this thread.

Already done a while back  Its an older mod so not sure if still works properly but give this a shot:

https://spacedock.info/mod/1787/Notantares - Gemini Paraglider

[Taco Salad]

27 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Already done a while back  Its an older mod so not sure if still works properly but give this a shot:

https://spacedock.info/mod/1787/Notantares - Gemini Paraglider

Tried it, far too outdated it seems. A shame.

[1124max]

8 minutes ago, Taco Salad said:

Tried it, far too outdated it seems. A shame.

I believe knes has one, but the steerable version depends on retractable lifting surface. Also has a different shape if you care about that.

[SpaceFace545]

10 minutes ago, Taco Salad said:

Tried it, far too outdated it seems. A shame.

You could also try the parafoil from KNES. Not a paraglided but it works I guess. 

[Galileo chiu]

On 11/12/2021 at 4:46 AM, Beccab said:

Augumented performance Space Shuttle (Martin Marietta concept)

Put simply, you take a a Titan first stage, then rework it massively like in the graphics below and fix the asymmetrical thrust while increasing performance at the same time. Hey, as long as it works

  Reveal hidden contents

Can you put it on KerbalX? I would love to try it out

[Grimmas]

Is the Pioneer 10 really supposed to have eight different parts with UV experiments on board? That seems a bit weird at first glance.