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

[pTrevTrevs]

31 minutes ago, TaintedLion said:

A Tycho landing was considered fairly risky at the time. It's a very rocky area, too rocky for a rover, it'd have to be walking only. Copernicus would be cool.

Indeed, in addition to its rocky terrain, Tycho’s extreme southerly location made it extraordinarily difficult to reach with the operational limits of the Saturn/Apollo hardware. Jim McDivitt was so ardently opposed to a landing there that he once told the site selection board that a mission would go to Tycho “over my dead body”.

A lot of these same reasons are also making me doubtful about a polar landing, the extreme latitude will only get worse if an attempt is made for Shackleton, and the terrain isn’t bound to be much better near the poles. Depending on the landing site, I would have the opportunity to sample both the South Pole and the Aitken Basin biomes, but I just don’t know if it’s feasible either. Actually, if anyone knows of information about a hypothetical Apollo polar landing (or if it was even technically possible) I’d be very interested in reading it.

Copernicus, while definitely a scenic landing site, might not be a practical one either. It was thought that Apollo 20 would be sent there to close out the program with a bang, but as the last three missions were cancelled Copernicus slipped lower and lower on the priority list. After all, Apollos 12 and 14 had recovered Copernicus ejecta, and a landing inside the crater wasn’t likely to uncover much that couldn’t be gleaned from the material already in hand. For my part, I’ve already sampled Mare Imbrium on Apollo 15, and I’ll recover Major Craters material on Apollo 17. Those are the two biomes I can get science from in KSRSS, and without a practical reason to go there I find it a little harder to justify it as a site.

[CobaltWolf]

1 hour ago, pTrevTrevs said:

Actually, if anyone knows of information about a hypothetical Apollo polar landing (or if it was even technically possible) I’d be very interested in reading it.

As far as I know, that's considered fairly outside the capabilities of the Apollo architecture.

[pTrevTrevs]

1 hour ago, CobaltWolf said:

As far as I know, that's considered fairly outside the capabilities of the Apollo architecture.

I wouldn’t be surprised. Even if the hardware was technically capable of it, a polar landing wouldn’t have been able to use a free-return trajectory or a hybrid trajectory, and the lighting conditions at the poles are a lot less reliable. Still, I’m really tempted to copy For All Mankind…

[DaBaby Kerman]

So, about a glitch: Does anyone know how to fix the conformal decals glitch that happens with the Mercury capsule RCS?

[Clamp-o-Tron]

1 hour ago, pTrevTrevs said:

I wouldn’t be surprised. Even if the hardware was technically capable of it, a polar landing wouldn’t have been able to use a free-return trajectory or a hybrid trajectory, and the lighting conditions at the poles are a lot less reliable. Still, I’m really tempted to copy For All Mankind…

Try something with an LMAE kickstage-ish using the F-1A and J-2S performance upgrades (at least for 18).

As for how it fits inside the SLA with the LM…

uhhh…

I’ll leave that as an exercise to the reader!

[Kass__XAP]

We do a bit of docking practice.

 

 

 

 

[Kuiper_Belt]

A Sunset Launch With Atlas Agena

Agena, Welcome to Space!

 

[zakkpaz]

What's the plan for this little guy? it looks like it has a .cfg but there isn't a .mu

[CobaltWolf]

1 hour ago, zakkpaz said:

What's the plan for this little guy? it looks like it has a .cfg but there isn't a .mu

lmao did I not upload the .mu?

[x170doom]

12 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

lmao did I not upload the .mu?

apparently so (can confirm doesn't appear in the VAB/SPH)

[Staticalliam7]

12 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

lmao did I not upload the .mu?

simply a difference in skill

[alberro+]

16 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

lmao did I not upload the .mu?

Absolute lack of cognitive functions

[CobaltWolf]

On 1/23/2022 at 11:46 PM, Entr8899 said:

Once you're done making the current WIP variants, is there any possibility you could do some similar variants for the ETS Block 3/4 SMs?

On 1/24/2022 at 2:40 AM, Invaderchaos said:

Maybe? I’m not rly sure yet.

The ETS SMs heavily reuse UVs, so there might not be a lot you can do with them.

 

On 1/24/2022 at 9:41 AM, JustDark said:

Could it be possible to add a variant for Apollo 13 that adds a detachable shroud on the other side? (Probs won’t be added but it’d be useful for role playing/recreations/educational videos, the current service bay panel in the mod is on the opposite side of the explosion.)

Ehhhhhhhh I really never wanted to do it but the education angle kinda gets me. Maybe some day. If someone else does it.

RE: the stripped down SM, I think it's easy to overlook the advantages that are gained from having the SM "chassis" that the subsystems are mounted inside, both for ease of manufacturing and checkout.

 

On 1/24/2022 at 1:50 PM, DaBaby Kerman said:

So, about a glitch: Does anyone know how to fix the conformal decals glitch that happens with the Mercury capsule RCS?

I legit have no idea what this could be or how to fix it. The Mercury parts have a bunch of weird bugs, I guess. Good thing they're like... usually not main operational vehicle in someone's save.

 

On 1/24/2022 at 9:00 PM, CobaltWolf said:

lmao did I not upload the .mu?

I uploaded this file btw, the part should work now.

On 1/24/2022 at 4:09 AM, Beccab said:

I'm very late but if you get ever that bored at some point, the original 1961 North American CSM is kinda interesting and detailed too. Solid fueled SPS with 38 motors plus verniers, forward mounted RCS, "beveled" connection between CM and SM and something called "radar doors". Of course they had to add a paraglider option as well . Edit: oh, and Mercury style impact bags over the heat shield as well

Here's the full 1961 NAA publication, at that point the architecture was still for direct ascent but maybe the design wouldn't have changed too much:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/albums/72157628843527459

Wow that's is an incredibly cool set of images. Wish we had the whole document. I've converted what's there to a PDF and added it to the reference drive, tho.

[OrbitalManeuvers]

2 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Wow that's is an incredibly cool set of images.

This is no regular astronaut. This is an Action Astronaut for sure.

 

[biohazard15]

38 minutes ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:

This is no regular astronaut. This is an Action Astronaut for sure.

Sadly, this would probably be impossible without KIS... but man, that shovel. SHOVEL.

I mean, SPACE SHOVEL. To shovel stuff. IN SPACE.

We, like, totally need this.

[JustDark]

Skylab, but BIG.

(As big as a Saturn V S-II in fact)

Spoiler

Might learn how to make mods so I can make one of this, like a BDB Addon mod focused on fictional concepts

[Staticalliam7]

1 hour ago, JustDark said:

Might learn how to make mods so I can make one of this, like a BDB Addon mod focused on fictional concepts

Nova c8

[Starhelperdude]

8 minutes ago, Staticalliam7 said:

Nova c8

COMMITER OF CRIMES AGAINST KERBALITY DETECTED

PROCEED WITH DROPPING THE NUKE

[CDSlice]

So I decided to try out the Skylab parts and they are absolutely gorgeous, A+ to everyone involved with them. I do have a balance question though. When I launched it on a Saturn V with just the S-IC and S-II stages like the unofficial wiki said and even with only four F-1 engines and draining some of the fuel of the S-II stage I still ended up with way too much dV (about 900 m/s or so) after reaching a 150km circular orbit in JNSQ along with a very high TWR of almost 2 at launch. To be honest I don’t know that much about Skylab so maybe this is historically accurate but it felt like I was using a way too powerful rocket for the payload. Is this feeling correct or did I mess up somewhere?

[pTrevTrevs]

2 hours ago, JustDark said:

Skylab, but BIG.

(As big as a Saturn V S-II in fact)

  Hide contents

Might learn how to make mods so I can make one of this, like a BDB Addon mod focused on fictional concepts

S-IC dry workshop when

[Kerbal01]

Flew Gamma Centaur/Centaur Jr. Cosine losses kinda sucked. Payload was a Vega 3rd Stage and Mariner B. Had enough Dv to get the Mariner B out to jool though.

[Galileo chiu]

4 hours ago, pTrevTrevs said:

S-IC dry workshop when

S-II actually

[Zorg]

On 1/27/2022 at 5:12 AM, CDSlice said:

So I decided to try out the Skylab parts and they are absolutely gorgeous, A+ to everyone involved with them. I do have a balance question though. When I launched it on a Saturn V with just the S-IC and S-II stages like the unofficial wiki said and even with only four F-1 engines and draining some of the fuel of the S-II stage I still ended up with way too much dV (about 900 m/s or so) after reaching a 150km circular orbit in JNSQ along with a very high TWR of almost 2 at launch. To be honest I don’t know that much about Skylab so maybe this is historically accurate but it felt like I was using a way too powerful rocket for the payload. Is this feeling correct or did I mess up somewhere?

I have t actually finished balancing the Skylab parts yet.  But it is worth considering that the Saturn V is somewhat overpowered. 
 

Due to the dry mass fraction of KSP tanks being much higher than IRL, we have a situation where very small rockets underperform and sometimes need to be buffed (scout, red stone etc) while most rockets in the 1.5m to 3.125/3.75m range perform very accurately. And on the flip side very large rockets actually over perform.

I plan to go over the Skylab masses again but also JSO had recommended defueling the S1C for Apollo missions. This might give more realistic performance? I’ve only done one flight test recently and had 600m/s left over at 180km 50 degrees in JNSQ. 
 

there is little margin to play with the mass of most components as they will affect the wet labs negatively as they are quite marginal but I might make the dry OWS a bit heavier

Edited January 31, 2022 by Zorg

[Galileo chiu]

25 minutes ago, Zorg said:

I have t actually finished balancing the Skylab parts yet.  But it is worth considering that the Saturn V is somewhat overpowered. 
 

Due to the dry mass fraction of KSP tanks being much higher than IRL, we have a situation where very small rockets underperform and sometimes need to be buffed (scout, red stone etc) while most rockets in the 1.5m to 3.125/3.75m range perform very accurately. And on the flip side very large rockets actually over perform.

I plan to go over the Skylab masses again but also JSO had recommended defueling the S1C and Possibly the SII for Apollo missions. This might give more realistic performance? I’ve only done one flight test recently and had 600m/s left over at 180km 50 degrees in JNSQ. 
 

there is little margin to play with the mass of most components as they will affect the wet labs negatively as they are quite marginal but I might make the dry OWS a bit heavier

will you make a S-II drylab (even if it was never planned)?

also will the MOS solar panels be revamped?

[Zorg]

4 minutes ago, Galileo chiu said:

will you make a S-II drylab (even if it was never planned)?

also will the MOS solar panels be revamped?

We’ll probably do an SII wetlab. (There was a sketch for one)
 

re solar panels I dunno. It’s probably worth updating the solar cells to match everything else. Not sure if or when though. Something to think about perhaps. 

Edited January 27, 2022 by Zorg