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

[lemon cup]

8 minutes ago, Kuiper_Belt said:

For KSP, since the X-38 is a clipped mess of parts, it weighs a ton! The Delta IV core is under fueled and needed a third pair of GEM 60s to get off the ground.

'

To get around this problem in real life, NASA engineers would have probably gone into the .cfgs and edited the mass values.

Edited January 15, 2022 by lemon cup

[Galileo chiu]

1 hour ago, Kuiper_Belt said:

Shuttles Will Never Go Out of Style - The X-38 Crew Return Vehicle + Delta IV Medium ++

I'm confident that the X-38 could have flown on the existing Delta IV M+ 5-4, but with a service module to assist in rendezvous, a second RL-10-B2 and the associated mounting, then I believe a third or fourth pair of GEM 60s would be necessary.  For KSP, since the X-38 is a clipped mess of parts, it weighs a ton! The Delta IV core is under fueled and needed a third pair of GEM 60s to get off the ground. The GEM 60's thrust is lowered to increase burn time so that the core could burn more propellent and have a higher TWR at booster separation. Never would have thought the RS-68 would be under powered .

I got this idea from doing research on the X-38 where it was mentioned the possibility of being flown on Delta or Ariane 5 here. I really like how it turned out! If you want more images to look at from the flight, I've got an Imgur Album if you'd like .

they would have launched it in a Space Shuttle

[Kuiper_Belt]

2 hours ago, lemon cup said:

To get around this problem in real life, NASA engineers would have probably gone into the .cfgs and edited the mass values.

NASA engineers get so many more tools than us KSP players . I bet they use the Alt+F12 menu from time to time for tests !

35 minutes ago, Galileo chiu said:

they would have launched it in a Space Shuttle

This would have been true initially. In fact I've played around with its Shuttle Configuration. It was actually the first thing I did when making the craft as the dimensions needed to fit in the payload bay. (I always think of this image as the little Shuttle Nesting Dolls)

A flight had been scheduled (STS-136 in April 2007) prior to the cancelation of the X-38 in 2002 and the Columbia Disaster. But NASA knew that the Shuttle would be retired at some point and the X-38 was a possible solution for crewed flights to and from the ISS. ESA and DLR also showed interest in the project early on and were involved with its development.

[derega16]

30 minutes ago, Kuiper_Belt said:

This would have been true initially. In fact I've played around with its Shuttle Configuration. It was actually the first thing I did when making the craft as the dimensions needed to fit in the payload bay. (I always think of this image as the little Shuttle Nesting Dolls)

Yo dawg! I heard you like a space plane, so I put a space plane into a space plane.

[The Dressian Exploder]

Would the APUS mod be better for building an X-37 or is the stock-based X-37 you've built there more accurate?

[bigyihsuan]

Iota Mission with Prometheus-derived Technology

This mission was just an excuse to use the Herakles parts and the Dona lander. Plus I hadn't unlocked Sarnus parts yet.

https://imgur.com/a/lXfkEvq

Selected images:

Spoiler

 

Edited January 15, 2022 by bigyihsuan

[Staticalliam7]

17 minutes ago, bigyihsuan said:

Iota Mission with Prometheus-derived Technology

This mission was just an excuse to use the Herakles parts and the Dona lander. Plus I hadn't unlocked Sarnus parts yet.

https://imgur.com/a/lXfkEvq

Selected images:

  Hide contents

 

Quite good!

[dababykerman]

Hello, so when I play with the Mercury Redstone, the sound always glitches. It's like a buzzing, glitchy sound, and it's very annoying. It's also only on EVA.

[OrbitalManeuvers]

Added a Zorg-o-scope to my station:

Spoiler

 

[Starhelperdude]

14 minutes ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:

Added a Zorg-o-scope to my station:

  Hide contents

 

lol I also thought about adding the telescope to my ETS spacelab

hehehe good idea in the image...

[SpaceFace545]

Last few dev updates nuked my plumes but I'm still having fun.

[bigyihsuan]

41 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Last few dev updates nuked my plumes but I'm still having fun.

-snip-

Hmm, a Delta IV Extra Heavy. I wonder how much payload this could do.

[pTrevTrevs]

2 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Last few dev updates nuked my plumes but I'm still having fun.

Took me a bit longer to figure out what was wrong with these pictures than I’d be proud to admit.

[Mudwig]

2 hours ago, bigyihsuan said:

Hmm, a Delta IV Extra Heavy. I wonder how much payload this could do.

Quick, back of the napkin math (using guesstimated, approximate, probably incorrect numbers, because I didn't feel like looking them up) says roughly ~39.5 tons to LEO and ~17.5 tons to GTO. It really depends on how much you'd have to loft it to achieve orbit (probably very) and how much of your available delta-v was wasted in that process (probably a lot). So, it seems like a fairly modest uplift over Delta IV Heavy.

The extremely low upper stage TWR (assuming it's an off-the-shelf 5m DCSS) would make this super impractical, or maybe even impossible, to use for anything resembling it's "maximum" capabilities and it would likely require a new, or heavily modified, upper stage to really be useful. Just way too much booster and not nearly enough upper stage. It's sort of like a t-rex powerlifting; It's little arms just can't keep up with it's beefy legs.

Somebody with better math skills and more accurate numbers would come up with more accurate results, obviously, but the ballpark numbers tell me it's a bit of a dud.

[derega16]

2 hours ago, Mudwig said:

Quick, back of the napkin math (using guesstimated, approximate, probably incorrect numbers, because I didn't feel like looking them up) says roughly ~39.5 tons to LEO and ~17.5 tons to GTO. It really depends on how much you'd have to loft it to achieve orbit (probably very) and how much of your available delta-v was wasted in that process (probably a lot). So, it seems like a fairly modest uplift over Delta IV Heavy.

The extremely low upper stage TWR (assuming it's an off-the-shelf 5m DCSS) would make this super impractical, or maybe even impossible, to use for anything resembling it's "maximum" capabilities and it would likely require a new, or heavily modified, upper stage to really be useful. Just way too much booster and not nearly enough upper stage. It's sort of like a t-rex powerlifting; It's little arms just can't keep up with it's beefy legs.

Somebody with better math skills and more accurate numbers would come up with more accurate results, obviously, but the ballpark numbers tell me it's a bit of a dud.

Yeah the upper stage is the biggest problem here, nearly all of DIVH delivered HLV required a new upper stage

[Zorg]

10 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Last few dev updates nuked my plumes but I'm still having fun.

 

 

Theres been no changes to those plumes and they're still working on my end. 

 

[SpaceFace545]

3 minutes ago, Zorg said:

Theres been no changes to those plumes and they're still working on my end. 

 

Yeah it’s weird. Everyone I know is fine but I think something just caused a chain reaction and messed some stuff up. Tried replacing waterfall and the real plume suite and no luck.

[Zorg]

Multibody wide fairing now available. Its a fairing switch on the S4B base.

[Starhelperdude]

11 minutes ago, Zorg said:

Multibody wide fairing now available. Its a fairing switch on the S4B base.

nice!

would it be possible that we could get such a fairing but with a hole at the top for apollo?

[Zorg]

4 minutes ago, Starhelperdude said:

nice!

would it be possible that we could get such a fairing but with a hole at the top for apollo?

I'll put that down as a maybe in the future. It couldnt be a SAF at any rate, it would need to use the BDB SLA module to work properly.

Just based on that image theres also a couple of additional things I want to clarify regarding the fairing decisions.

Firstly the extended 6.7m (s4b diameter) faring with the shape of the SLA doesnt seem too plausible extended since the separation plane of the SLA panels are something like over here

 

The short version which can be considered an SLA capped off but an extended version of that doesnt really work. We do still have the capped SLA part but to be honest if this were built IRL it would almost certainly be the Skylab fairing which already existed, was purpose built as a fairing as was easily adjustable in length. (eg  Voyager 73 would have launched in a version of that fairing). 

Secondly on the subject of the 10m fairing again if it had been built, it would most likely have a biconic profile similar to Skylab. Despite the prevalence of Saturn MLV depictions with conic fairings (most probably due to Astronautix illustrations), actual MLV documents show biconics. These fairings do take up a lot of texture room as well and so using the more realistic historical assets saves a lot of space.

[SpaceFace545]

3 hours ago, Zorg said:

Theres been no changes to those plumes and they're still working on my end. 

 

Well the weird thing is that only plumes from BDB don't appear. All other mods and stock still have plumes.

[Zorg]

24 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Well the weird thing is that only plumes from BDB don't appear. All other mods and stock still have plumes.

might be able to check if you post your modulemanager.log and modulemanager.configcache 

Would also double check the BDB install itself

[SpaceFace545]

31 minutes ago, Zorg said:

might be able to check if you post your modulemanager.log and modulemanager.configcache 

Would also double check the BDB install itself

Here are the logs:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/s3eaa4mmsjkrbxs/ModuleManager.log?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zevtmmxlt9uy79q/ModuleManager.ConfigCache?dl=0

And this also is happening:

[Zorg]

41 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Here are the logs:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/s3eaa4mmsjkrbxs/ModuleManager.log?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zevtmmxlt9uy79q/ModuleManager.ConfigCache?dl=0

And this also is happening:

Its a bit late right now for me but will check on it tomorrow. However, in the meantime please check if your B9PS is up to date and installed correctly. 

[birdog357]

2 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Here are the logs:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/s3eaa4mmsjkrbxs/ModuleManager.log?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zevtmmxlt9uy79q/ModuleManager.ConfigCache?dl=0

And this also is happening:

Have you tried deleting your MM cache? I had some weird issues a while back that was solved that way.