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

[CobaltWolf]

For what it's worth, I don't check other places, so I appreciate the BDB screenshots being here Just be mindful and use spoilers for large amounts of images, or link to an external album after a couple teasers.

[Starhelperdude]

Launch of NEOS-1/2, 6th August, 2020, Delta-7320-H (Fictional)

Spoiler

NEOS-2 Seperation

Major seperation mechanism failure, leading to the total loss of NEOS-1, Delta-K is also damaged

NEOS-2 didn't recieve damage and can soon start with it's mass spectronomy mission

De-orbit of Delta-K and major NEOS-1 fragments

Close-up of NEOS-2

on a more serious node (lol), what is the order in decoupling the adapters with the delta 2 dual payload adapter?

 

[pTrevTrevs]

Gonna go ahead and ask this here, since I expect a number of informed people to see it. Where can I find information on the hypothetical second production run of Saturn Vs? I know that if ordered they would have had propulsion upgrades to the F-1A and J-2S, but do we know of any other notable changes that would have been implemented? I’ve heard that these Gen 2 Saturns would have also removed the fins on the S-IC, but elsewhere I’ve read that those fins were necessary for mitigating vibrations during the early part of launch.

 

44 minutes ago, Starhelperdude said:

Launch of NEOS-1/2, 6th August, 2020, Delta-7320-H (Fictional)

  Hide contents

NEOS-2 Seperation

Major seperation mechanism failure, leading to the total loss of NEOS-1, Delta-K is also damaged

NEOS-2 didn't recieve damage and can soon start with it's mass spectronomy mission

De-orbit of Delta-K and major NEOS-1 fragments

Close-up of NEOS-2

on a more serious node (lol), what is the order in decoupling the adapters with the delta 2 dual payload adapter?

 

Man, I missed Delta II a lot today. Maybe this is the boomer part of me speaking but the Delta IV and Atlas V just aren’t the same as their legacy ancestors…

[Pappystein]

So I created a pretty comprehensive QOL list.  I am only posting the Saturn portion of the list right now.    But I also have Agena and Titan parts that could use QOL adjustments.   Some of these are new parts, some are changes to existing parts and the bulk of the work (even though it is only like 3 entries) is alternative paint.  

Some additional Notes:  The S-V stage is not a direct copy paste Centaur.  Rather the tank is a thicker walled Centaur that did not eject it's insulation upon reaching space.   It kept it until S-V stage ignition.   The tank was self supporting so Monocoque instead of Balloon (meaning it is heavier than Centaur D.1)  and because of the higher pressure limits has a better boiloff profile.

LR119 was never actually built, for sake of convenience and time it was quicker to re-design the 220" S-IV 4 engine stage to the 240" S-IV 6 engine stage we all know and love today  

RL10B-3, the S-I Engine plate changes and the Centaur C/E should all be B9PS changes with additional variants added to their respective parts....  Although it would be neat if the RL10B-3 was a re-use of the RL10A-3 model with a new texture (different colors) to represent some exotic new material... like Coloumbium?        The Centaur one being the one that would require more work than the others.   The Auto Jettison for the Insulation would have to either be disabled or re-worked for the Centaur C/E and a somewhat different level of insulation would need to be applied to simulate the improved boiloff characteristics of the higher pressure level capable Centaur tank.

 

 

****EDITED****

Centaur C is the Saturn Centaur up until NASA took over management of the Centaur program from Convair.   AFTER NASA took over the Centaur designation system was altered and what was Centaur C became Centaur E.   And when Lockheed Martin took over the Centaur systems back from NASA they changed the nomenclature again.  The existing Centaur V should actually be D.5A per last NASA nomenclature for example

 

 

 

Edited January 22, 2022 by Pappystein

[Zephyr52]

Testing out the new Saturn parts, the Flyby Mission Module causes the CSM to spin out on staging. With the lander adapter segments attached it parts explode along with the spin-out.

 

[Cheesecake]

I am planning my first longtime Apollo-Mission to Minmus and need the small Orbital Mission Module (8OMM). I determine that tere isn`t a separate hidden node to attach at the LAM while the LAM has a B9-switch for the small and the big OMM. I checked the 12OMM and the node is missing too.

[Starhelperdude]

9 minutes ago, Cheesecake said:

I am planning my first longtime Apollo-Mission to Minmus and need the small Orbital Mission Module (8OMM). I determine that tere isn`t a separate hidden node to attach at the LAM while the LAM has a B9-switch for the small and the big OMM. I checked the 12OMM and the node is missing too.

move the mission module down

[Cheesecake]

5 minutes ago, Starhelperdude said:

move the mission module down

I did this. It was only a annotation for a fix or to add a node.

[Invaderchaos]

Apollo SM Boilerplate and S-IV Payload Adapter now on the Apollo Branch of the BDB Github!

[CAPFlyer]

On 1/17/2022 at 12:33 PM, Zorg said:

1/2 Saturn I block II (SA5) fairing. IRL this was a Jupiter nose cone and mass simulator but a fairing in that style is probably more useful. On github now as subtype on the generic 2.5m fairing base.

Quick question because I guess I'm looking at something wrong, but I can't find a 2.5m Generic Fairing base in either the master or Apollo revamp branch.  Goes from 1.875m to 3.125m in the Generic folder and 1.5m to 3.125m in the SAF Fairings folder.

EDIT:  Nevermind.  Found it.  It's listed as the Delta III fairing.  Cool.

Edited January 22, 2022 by CAPFlyer

[biohazard15]

4 hours ago, Invaderchaos said:

Apollo SM Boilerplate and S-IV Payload Adapter now on the Apollo Branch of the BDB Github!

Nice!

Small QoL thing: please add Lead Ballast resource to Apollo boilerplate, like on Titan II RV. Something about 20t max, judging by its size?

And BTW, can you guys resurrect the old Titan I warhead case and add Lead Ballast to it too? I know about NRAP mod, but I'd like some historical stuff instead of that EuroNCAP warhead 

Edited January 22, 2022 by biohazard15

[Invaderchaos]

12 hours ago, biohazard15 said:

Nice!

Small QoL thing: please add Lead Ballast resource to Apollo boilerplate, like on Titan II RV. Something about 20t max, judging by its size?

And BTW, can you guys resurrect the old Titan I warhead case and add Lead Ballast to it too? I know about NRAP mod, but I'd like some historical stuff instead of that EuroNCAP warhead 

Good idea. I’m not sure about adding 20 tons tho as the mass I added is specifically balanced for Saturn I. I believe currently it only adds 2.5 tons. 20t would be heavier than the S-IV stage itself I believe. But I’ll figure something out

[Pappystein]

So, since the latest round of insanity "we want Saturn C-8" (which isn't a thing) I decided to deep dive the NTRS archive and I found somethings.

In 1959-1960 the plan to go to the moon was Earth Orbit Rendezvous utilizing multiple Saturn (that is what we know as the C-1 S-I stage) with whatever upper stages they could fit on it to build a spaceship to go to the moon.   It is here that the first problem with Saturn starts.   You see the S-I stage we all know and love as Cluster's Last Stand WAS the Saturn Rocket at this juncture.  Anything on top of it was SOMETHING ELSE, aka a PAYLOAD for Saturn.   The Letter codes (A, B, C, and D) were utilized to study different "Payload stages" combinations to get X, Y or Z pounds of payload into LEO.

• the Saturn with A upper stages was the Ballistic missile derived (primarily) and included potentially a Baby Cluster above the I stage.
• the Saturn with B Upper Stages was 220" Diameter new built stages.   Something that would lay the ground work for the C series next:
• the Saturn with C Upper stages was either 220", 240" or 260" in diameter (it changed several times) and was what was settled on based on the conceptual math of the A and B Saturn upper stage plans. 
• the Saturn with C Upper stages of increased diameter (C-3) was not conceived at the point of this document, but C-3 was an outgrowth of the limitations the C-2 rocket had as pointed out in this document.
• the Saturn D upper stages would combine the C Upper stages with Nuclear propulsion.    So at this juncture it isn't C-2N and C-3N but rather D-2 and D-3 for example.

 

About this time NTRS article 19730064135 was penned.  In it, a comparison of the then understood paths to the moon before 1970.

• Assembled Rocket in orbit based on Saturn + B or Saturn + C upper stages (choices had not been done at this time)
• Much more costly Direct Ascent Rocket based on the concepts of Saturn and Nova but actually NEITHER ONE.

Direct Transfer Earth-Moon Rocket (what many of you call C-8) was not part of Saturn and was a "prove this won't work" conceptual math exercise.   The Cost and Risk to assemble a Moon lander and return vehicle in space being lower than the cost and risk of a giant Direct Ascent rocket.  

Direct Ascent Rocket, died before Earth Orbital Rendezvous died.  

 

The above is a direct quote from the Article.   Direct Ascent CAN NOT be used before the 1970s as it clearly states here.   Remember at this time the only part of the rocket called Saturn is what we call the S-I Cluster stage today!

Then Kennedy's speech and latter assassination would cancel EOR.   EOR could not make the timeline of BEFORE 1970.   Long live Lunar Orbital Rendezvous!  Long live the Saturn C-5! 

 

 

Also NTRS article 19640058212 has some interesting "Buck Rogers" payloads for the future Saturn Rocket.  Many of them were repeated in the 1973 archived document above as well.  

 

NOW here is where it gets fun and the waters get muddy.   The MSFC version of Direct Transfer Earth-Moon AKA Direct Ascent Rocket was dusted off and polished up to look vaguely Saturn like for the SECOND Nova Program of 1963-1965.  It however was NEVER SUBMITTED.   Nova grew to obscene sizes and MSFC refocused on Saturn MLV in lieu of NOVA.

As it is, and as called out in NTRS article 19660012934,  most of the competing Nova Rockets were between 60ft and 80 ft in diameter.   My favorite example essentially clusters 6 Saturn V first stages around a 7th central Saturn V first stage     Like I said, Nova is crazy stupid, and that includes the baby MSFC one you all keep bemoaning.

 

 

 

[DaveyJ576]

Three more QoL items to consider:

1. I have it on reliable authority (Ed Kyle on the nasaspaceflight.com L2 forums) that on Saturn I flights SA-8, 9, & 10 they flew a new, lightweight IU. It was unpressurized  and weighed 2,677 lbs vs. 5,382 lbs on the original version. It was also two feet shorter. Is it possible to get a B9PS for this? There is a picture on their forums, but since it is on their paid L2 level I don't think I can repost it. Essentially it looks a lot like the S-IVB version.

2. According to this source (OMSF document Recommended Changes in the Use of Space Vehicles in the Apollo Test Program, October 29th, 1963), the four manned flights of the Saturn I that had been on the schedule for 1965/66 were to use a full up Apollo CSM, but with a minimum amount of fuel. By limiting the mission duration to three days (and thus keeping CM onboard consumables to that amount) the CSM could be loaded with 1,300 lbs of propellent and the Saturn I could still lift it to a workable orbit. This contradicts my earlier assumption that the Saturn I would have only been able to lift a "Mercury style" CM, with just a few additional lbs of monoprop, some extra batteries, and some solid retro motors attached to the heatshield. So, with all this said, is it possible to get a B9PS added to the CM and SM to drop the fuel and monoprop to these amounts? Essentially you could call the new config "Orbital 1" while the current orbital config for the SM could be called "Orbital 2", or some such thing.

3. Very nitpicky here... the same L2 source (Ed Kyle) states that mission SA-201, the first Saturn IB launch, was the first to have the Boost Protective Cover in place over the CM. On the Saturn I flights that had a CM boilerplate, the LES tower was attached directly to the CM. Although he didn't state it directly, I get the impression that the LES tower was jettisoned from the boilerplate via frangible bolts. Can this be incorporated somehow? I think it would be a safe assumption that if manned flights had occurred on a Saturn I the BPC would have been in place.

Thanks again for everything! I have a weird soft spot for the Saturn I and I really appreciate all of the refinements of late.

[dababykerman]

So something weird happens when i'm in the atmosphere  in the Mercury capsule. On the RCS thrusters, there's a transparent line coming out and it getting annoying.  Anyone know a fix?

 

[DaveyJ576]

12 minutes ago, dababykerman said:

So something weird happens when i'm in the atmosphere  in the Mercury capsule. On the RCS thrusters, there's a transparent line coming out and it getting annoying.  Anyone know a fix?

 

I believe it is related to the mod Conformal Decals. I get the same effect. Next time I fly a Mercury mission I will try removing the decals. 

[dababykerman]

3 minutes ago, DaveyJ576 said:

I believe it is related to the mod Conformal Decals. I get the same effect. Next time I fly a Mercury mission I will try removing the decals. 

Do you know if there is a way to fix it or is there no way?

[Taco Salad]

I've seen people here talk about hydrogen fueled tugs and fuel depots, but with the boiloff system in BDB it doesn't seem feasible. Is there some way to better insulate tanks that I'm not aware of? If not, would it be possible to have a refrigerator part that can eliminate or greatly reduce boiloff. Costs electric charge and needs radiators to transfer the heat into space.

[Pappystein]

Just now, Taco Salad said:

I've seen people here talk about hydrogen fueled tugs and fuel depots, but with the boiloff system in BDB it doesn't seem feasible. Is there some way to better insulate tanks that I'm not aware of? If not, would it be possible to have a refrigerator part that can eliminate or greatly reduce boiloff. Costs electric charge and needs radiators to transfer the heat into space.

Tanks in BDB have an inherent set insulation value.    This is in the part configs.  I have not played around with it and I don't know the effect of changing it... although I am tempted to use a MM copy to make Centaur C....    the Monocoque tanks would be heavier and moar insulation so.....    

 

[DaveyJ576]

2 hours ago, dababykerman said:

Do you know if there is a way to fix it or is there no way?

The last time I looked into it there wasn’t a consensus on how to fix it. 

[OrbitalManeuvers]

2 hours ago, Taco Salad said:

Is there some way to better insulate tanks that I'm not aware of?

if they're not using some cooling solution then maybe they've turned boiloff down (or off) in the BDB game settings?

[scottadges]

Wanted to say big thanks for all the cool probes included with BDB. I'm doing a final KSP1 Career game and started with Probes Before Crew. 

Here's my Orbiting Solar Observatory proudly tracking the Sun after completing a successful contract (and netting a little chunk of funds & science).

See spoiler below:

Spoiler

 

 

Edited January 23, 2022 by scottadges

[Zorg]

10 hours ago, Taco Salad said:

I've seen people here talk about hydrogen fueled tugs and fuel depots, but with the boiloff system in BDB it doesn't seem feasible. Is there some way to better insulate tanks that I'm not aware of? If not, would it be possible to have a refrigerator part that can eliminate or greatly reduce boiloff. Costs electric charge and needs radiators to transfer the heat into space.

Yeah our boiloff system was designed around simulating the old cryogenic tanks for our historical rockets. Boiloff can be mitigated to an extent by using dedicated cryogenic tanks such as Centaur or SII which have insulation and they will boil off less inside a cargo bay or fairing. these methods probably extend the life of the mission by a few hours not days. 
 

You can turn down the boiloff rate in the BDB panel in the in game difficulty settings or turn it off entirely. Alternatively there is a patch in BDB extras that will substitute the BDB boiloff module for CryoTanks’ one. 
 

personally I have always used CryoTanks for depots as I think the gold foil tanks in that mod look great and represent zero boiloff tanks nicely. 
 

having said that we might have some sort of cryo cooling solution like you suggest in the future. In the next major update after upcoming Saturn/Apollo one we will be looking at things like nuclear tugs and so on so maybe it’s time to figure out what we want for BDB cryo cooling. 

[Galileo chiu]

I think the Centaur D tank should be with the centaur probcore

[Starhelperdude]

9 minutes ago, Galileo chiu said:

I think the Centaur D tank should be with the centaur probcore

IMO tanks and avionics shouldn't be put into 1 part, for example if you want (for some reason) to have multiple centaurs stacked on another, it wouldn't really make sense for every centaur to have avionics, having avionics on the centaur at the top would make more sense

also, if the avionics get merged with the tank, there would be no space for the fairing 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

you heard of F.R.I.E.N.D.S., but have you heard of A.B.W.C.C.D.?

Spoiler

(C(2) and wetlab -B are fictional)

 

Edited January 23, 2022 by Starhelperdude