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

[DaveyJ576]

1 hour ago, CobaltWolf said:

Another thing worth considering - (and this is my understanding) - the Saturns were set to see their prices drop DRAMATICALLY in any subsequent production runs. The facilities are all bought and paid for. The Instrument Unit in particular, originally a substantial fraction of a Saturn 1B's cost, would have been made significantly cheaper to fly.

Excellent point, and one I hadn’t thought of. Having worked for the federal government most of my life I can tell you for sure that money talks. This point alone may have pushed NASA into building more Saturn IBs. 
 

 I am actually not a I/IB hater. I think it is a cool looking rocket. The clustered tanks give it that “Space Age” aesthetic that is sadly lacking in today’s rockets. Witness my earlier post with the Gemini Saturn stack!

[Starhelperdude]

2 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

That appears to be the source for the comment in Stages to Saturn, I think?

It occurs to me, one thing somewhat missing from this conversation - there's a VERY big difference between what they could propose in the late 50s, vs what could be proposed in the late 60s. In the study you linked, things are still up in the air, and it's still several years before Kennedy's speech. By the late 60s (which are the docs I referred to), the S-1 had been flying for years. There would be a lot of inertia to overcome if you wanted to substantially redesign the stage at that point.

On another note, this reminded me that I *had* put together something like an H-2 engine a while back. Basically just a small edit to the H-1, but it might be digging up and finishing?

  Reveal hidden contents

 

H-2 on left, original H-1 on right. The pumps and intake pipes are larger.

 

 

Two more pics of the H-2. One of the other changes I incorporated was a starter cartridge (ripped off the J-2S model)

 

I built a fictional Saturn INT-10 some time ago, basically a Saturn IB but it features the longest S-I tank stretch and the H1s are replaced by H2s. Flight performance was average, I could theoretically have replaced the S-IVB with the MS-IVB as featured on INT-17

[biohazard15]

6 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

On another note, this reminded me that I *had* put together something like an H-2 engine a while back. Basically just a small edit to the H-1, but it might be digging up and finishing?

That would be quite useful for both IB and Fatlas, especially if you want a stretched 1st stage.

Edited December 8, 2021 by biohazard15

[derega16]

I'm started to think why they didn't called F-1A F-2 engine? If this can be called H-2 not H-1A

[GoldForest]

4 hours ago, derega16 said:

I'm started to think why they didn't called F-1A F-2 engine? If this can be called H-2 not H-1A

I think it's because F-1A only changed internal components, it never changed the size of anything externally. 

H-2 added a bigger turbopump as well as bigger pipes, so the the look of the engine changed externally 

[Entr8899]

Could you please add node attach to the Apollo solar panels? There are already a pair of nodes (for the Apollo 17 radar antennas) in the correct place on the engine plate, and I find them frustrating to surface attach.
EDIT: And the ETS Apollo high-gain antennas too, if possible.

Edited December 9, 2021 by Entr8899

[ksp player]

How can you install the BDB apollo revamp on github? I can't figure it out.

[GoldForest]

1 hour ago, ksp player said:

How can you install the BDB apollo revamp on github? I can't figure it out.

Use the Github link in the OP.

Click on "Code" in the top left.

Click on the drop down where it says "Master" near the top left

Select "apollo-saturn-revamp"

Click the green "code" button

"Download zip"

???

Profit 

[Galileo chiu]

2 hours ago, ksp player said:

How can you install the BDB apollo revamp on github? I can't figure it out.

Or you can click the development link on this forum thread

[Jcking]

13 hours ago, derega16 said:

I'm started to think why they didn't called F-1A F-2 engine? If this can be called H-2 not H-1A

 

9 hours ago, GoldForest said:

I think it's because F-1A only changed internal components, it never changed the size of anything externally. 

H-2 added a bigger turbopump as well as bigger pipes, so the the look of the engine changed externally 

This me speculating as there is very little information on the H-2 engine, but I am willing to bet that it is very much more of a new engine separate from the H-1 as opposed to the uprating that differentiates the F-1 from the F-1A. The turbopump change was just something that was called out on the report, which doesn’t give an exhaustive list on what the H-2 consists of.

[CobaltWolf]

15 hours ago, derega16 said:

I'm started to think why they didn't called F-1A F-2 engine? If this can be called H-2 not H-1A

11 hours ago, GoldForest said:

I think it's because F-1A only changed internal components, it never changed the size of anything externally. 

H-2 added a bigger turbopump as well as bigger pipes, so the the look of the engine changed externally

1 hour ago, Jcking said:

This me speculating as there is very little information on the H-2 engine, but I am willing to bet that it is very much more of a new engine separate from the H-1 as opposed to the uprating that differentiates the F-1 from the F-1A. The turbopump change was just something that was called out on the report, which doesn’t give an exhaustive list on what the H-2 consists of.

I'm given to understanding that changing the entire powerpack of the engine is more likely to make it considered new hardware, as compared to modifications to the injector, combustion chamber or nozzle.

 

9 hours ago, Entr8899 said:

Could you please add node attach to the Apollo solar panels? There are already a pair of nodes (for the Apollo 17 radar antennas) in the correct place on the engine plate, and I find them frustrating to surface attach.
EDIT: And the ETS Apollo high-gain antennas too, if possible.

Yeah we can look into that.

 

 

In unrelated news, y'all may have noticed I haven't had anything to share for a couple weeks. It's been a mix of traveling, the new HoI4 update, and the new Minecraft update. I'm planning on doing some work, probably a stream, this weekend. Looking to take care of the Multibody textures and get a start on AARDV Block II.

 

[Galileo chiu]

5 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

I'm given to understanding that changing the entire powerpack of the engine is more likely to make it considered new hardware, as compared to modifications to the injector, combustion chamber or nozzle.

 

Yeah we can look into that.

 

 

In unrelated news, y'all may have noticed I haven't had anything to share for a couple weeks. It's been a mix of traveling, the new HoI4 update, and the new Minecraft update. I'm planning on doing some work, probably a stream, this weekend. Looking to take care of the Multibody textures and get a start on AARDV Block II.

 

You have the new No Step Back DLC?

[CobaltWolf]

11 minutes ago, Galileo chiu said:

You have the new No Step Back DLC?

yeah it's pretty aight

[Galileo chiu]

1 minute ago, CobaltWolf said:

yeah it's pretty aight

You heard the new Katyusha?

[Pappystein]

On 12/8/2021 at 11:03 AM, CobaltWolf said:

  Hide contents

 

H-2 on left, original H-1 on right. The pumps and intake pipes are larger.

 

 

Two more pics of the H-2. One of the other changes I incorporated was a starter cartridge (ripped off the J-2S model)

 

Dayum!   This means another of my patches in the BDB Extras folder will soon bite the dust.    Only wish the thrust ring was smaller (so it could fit cleanly in the Atlas Booster skirt (or is the Booster skirt getting a revision as well??  IDR at this point!)   Seeing that thrust ring *MIGHT* have been due to me scaling up the engine via the SCALE function IDK.

8x H2 Engine Saturn IB Blk2 incoming I guess    Oh and Atlas F' as well

[Pappystein]

15 hours ago, derega16 said:

I'm started to think why they didn't called F-1A F-2 engine? If this can be called H-2 not H-1A

 

11 hours ago, GoldForest said:

I think it's because F-1A only changed internal components, it never changed the size of anything externally. 

H-2 added a bigger turbopump as well as bigger pipes, so the the look of the engine changed externally 

 

2 hours ago, Jcking said:

 

This me speculating as there is very little information on the H-2 engine, but I am willing to bet that it is very much more of a new engine separate from the H-1 as opposed to the uprating that differentiates the F-1 from the F-1A. The turbopump change was just something that was called out on the report, which doesn’t give an exhaustive list on what the H-2 consists of.

What little we have on the H-2,   30million price tag and it's name and perspective thrust category leads me to go with Jcking and GoldForest.    It may have been derived from the X-1 engine program (same as the H-1)  But it was all new hardware.    I believe I have seen that Turbopump mentioned in the few documents I have read on E-1 as well.  So likely it is a homogenization of parts from the E-1 engine that were already tested with LR-79 / H-1 hardware and changes to the combustion chamber to withstand higher pressures.        But that is 10000000000% Guess!

Something to note, the final LR-79/H-1 heritage design, the RS-27 had thinner thrust chamber walls than the H-1.   Meaning it is POSSIBLE that the H-1 was over engineered and could easily take a bigger turbopump etc.   However the thicker walls could have easily also been due to improvements in metallurgy over the 25 years between H-1 and RS-27... IDK.

 

[Starhelperdude]

30 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

yeah it's pretty aight

damn, I forgot both my hoi 4 name and passwort, now I'm stuck with playing kaiserreich (bit laggy but still cool)

On a more ksp-related note, here is the afroementioned fictional saturn INT-10 with 8 H2s

[Gordon Dry]

On 10/26/2021 at 7:57 PM, mozartbeatle said:

Also, minor issue, but the apollo capsule gets dangerously hot very easily despite a full heatshield recently.

Minor? During reentry I was quick enough to enable the "ignore heat cheat" (which luckily is possible in pause menu) to avoid the death of 3 Kerbals, as the pod got hotter than the heatshield in a matter of seconds.
Without DRE, without FAR, on JNSQ 10x.

[Saltshaker]

9 minutes ago, Gordon Dry said:

Minor? During reentry I was quick enough to enable the "ignore heat cheat" (which luckily is possible in pause menu) to avoid the death of 3 Kerbals, as the pod got hotter than the heatshield in a matter of seconds.
Without DRE, without FAR, on JNSQ 10x.

Have you tried buffing the temperature tolerance in an MM patch or the part's config?

[Gordon Dry]

2 hours ago, Saltshaker said:

Have you tried buffing the temperature tolerance in an MM patch or the part's config?

How do you mean?

Before, as fiddling?
Or after, as fixing the issue?

I guess the issue is because the heatshield clips into the pod with the actual node position and so the conduction is too high.

Spoiler

Just check the top edge of the heatshield in the 2nd screenshot, it clips inside the pod:

Edit:
Could­™ it be that only parts with ModuleConductionMultiplier are affected, besides the obvious clipping?

Edited December 9, 2021 by Gordon Dry

[Jcking]

47 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

Something to note, the final LR-79/H-1 heritage design, the RS-27 had thinner thrust chamber walls than the H-1.   Meaning it is POSSIBLE that the H-1 was over engineered and could easily take a bigger turbopump etc.   However the thicker walls could have easily also been due to improvements in metallurgy over the 25 years between H-1 and RS-27... IDK.

A memo describing H-1 improvements that were to come about for Saturn I block II engines seems to indicate that it was more a case of reliability for not choosing the Mark XIV turbopump. It also states that H-2 was to have used a tap-off cycle in place of the gas generator (something that block II H-1s were to use). http://heroicrelics.org/info/h-1/saturn-h-1-engine-design-features/Saturn H-1 Engine Design Features (small).pdf

Edited December 9, 2021 by Jcking

[Kerbal01]

What do i need to do to the SLA config  file to be able to close the doors in flight?  That used to be possible with the old version and I use it for reasons.

[Invaderchaos]

We're getting there...

Edited December 10, 2021 by Invaderchaos

[alberro+]

21 minutes ago, Invaderchaos said:

We're getting there...

NICE!

[Pappystein]

10 hours ago, Jcking said:

A memo describing H-1 improvements that were to come about for Saturn I block II engines seems to indicate that it was more a case of reliability for not choosing the Mark XIV turbopump. It also states that H-2 was to have used a tap-off cycle in place of the gas generator (something that block II H-1s were to use). http://heroicrelics.org/info/h-1/saturn-h-1-engine-design-features/Saturn H-1 Engine Design Features (small).pdf

Good find!

However the statement about H-2 could logically be taken two ways.   1) It is un-reliable.  2) As an interim rocket to the Saturn V the Saturn IB is good enough as is and does not need the extra 30 million spent on a better engine to make the S-IB even better.

The linked document talks about the improvements being done to the H-1 to make it more reliable.   Therefor they already have tested it... H-2 (XIV) was still an unknown and would require the same rigorous testing...   + Kennedy Time Crunch = H-2 is Wasteful and not needed in my translation of all the documents.

Either way, I think the H-2 being developed is an actually better departure point for an Alt History story for space than most of the others that have been out there.    Don't get me wrong, there are many great Alt History space race stories out there.   Some which are well covered by this mod.    I am just thinking that a "Viable" "Usable" Saturn S-IB blk2 or whatever makes for an even better story.   My 0.01 cents USD