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

[Kerbal01]

5 hours ago, Saltshaker said:

Mariner B?

the bigger mariner bus

[JustDark]

Will paint options for the short Apollo SM be added?

[biohazard15]

12 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

n other news, more R-4D cluster variants incoming...

Is there any plans for a dedicated ModuleEngines-based R-4D, for building IABS and such stuff? Two variants in upper right corner would be absolutely perfect for this:

- Same stats as RCS blocks (weight, thrust etc)

- B9 switch between single and double variants

- Node attachment (surface attachment should be also possible)

- B9 switch for bottom node (so it can be used without interstages)

[Entr8899]

8 hours ago, JustDark said:

Will paint options for the short Apollo SM be added?

On 1/26/2022 at 4:14 PM, CobaltWolf said:

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

[GoldForest]

22 hours ago, pTrevTrevs said:

But a dry lab requires MOAR BOOSTERS

Maybe such a massive payload would finally give Cobalt a reason to do Saturn C-8.

 

20 hours ago, Starhelperdude said:

reject C-8

embrace Saturn-MLV-V-25(S)

My Starlab concept was launched on a somewhat Saturn MLV-V-25(S). The Second S-II is part of Starlab. Kind of based it off Von Braun's Saturn V conversion wetlab drawing. 

[DaveyJ576]

@CobaltWolf, @Invaderchaos,  and the dev team,

Some further QoL items to consider:

1. The Block I CSM had a much smaller umbilical connector between the CM and SM. It was also placed almost 180 deg. opposite from the Block II version. See this pic:

Spoiler

Would you have to add a new part, or can this be done via a B9PS?

2. I have it on reliable authority (Ed Kyle on the nasaspaceflight.com L2 forums) that Saturn I flights SA-8, 9, & 10 flew with 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. Yes, you can scale down your existing S-IVB IU, or scale up the Titan LDC IU, but the weight and size is off a bit.

3. 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. I was successful in adjusting down the propellent amounts in the CM and SM so that a Saturn I will lift it to a 100 km orbit, but it would be handier to have a part switch for it.

4. 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 and Little Joe 2 flights that had a CM boilerplate, the LES tower was attached directly to the CM.  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. Can the BPC portion of the LES be removed via a B9PS?

Thanks again for everything. I really appreciate how much detail you provide in this mod. Very immersive for this space nut! 

[Invaderchaos]

A little surprise coming soon… (WIP)

Edited January 28, 2022 by Invaderchaos

[Jcking]

5 minutes ago, Invaderchaos said:

A little surprise coming soon… (WIP)

The APAS-75 port, Is that new made or is it going to be using the Tantares port?

Edited January 28, 2022 by Jcking

[Invaderchaos]

2 minutes ago, Jcking said:

The APAS-75 port, Is that new made or is it going to be using the Tantares port?

Currently, I just plan on leaving it to Tantares. As the docking port is 0.9375m it fits well 

[birdog357]

On 1/27/2022 at 11:27 AM, Cheesecake said:

Inspired by @pTrevTrevsI build my version of a LRV:

 

Can I get a .craft file please?

[JoeSheridan]

2 hours ago, Invaderchaos said:

A little surprise coming soon… (WIP)

Yes please. That´s a perfect addition for my ongoing long term streaming world. I have (together with a lot of other mods) Tantares and BDB on my world a i will use the RL and ETS Apollos a lot and i will use them often in joint flight´s with the soviets. And you give us the perfect Docking-Adapter, both for Apollo-Soyuz and as a nice fitting addition for Spacelab / a lot of other stations i plan to built.

And @CobaltWolf I would like to ask if there was made any decision regarding the B9-Part Switch integration for the J-2´s? (and Perhaps other engines that don´t have them yet?) will that come and would there defenitely be a craft-break with the introduction?  Yes, i know: Using the Dev-Branch means: Be Prepared for Craft-File-Breaks, but i just looooove the new parts.... they can give my twitch series just a much much better Style when i get to Apollo.  But for the moment i have stoped to develop parts of my "Story" that would need the J-2-Variants / Every Saturn Except the Saturn I / Juno V. And i justwould like to know: Is it better to wait out that transition to B9 and just play out the "Russian" Side of my story first, or is it safe to use the J-2´s / Engines that probably get updatet too.

Edited January 29, 2022 by JoeSheridan

[Cheesecake]

1 hour ago, birdog357 said:

Can I get a .craft file please?

Problematic because I edit some parts (including stock-parts) and made some configs.

[birdog357]

1 hour ago, Cheesecake said:

Problematic because I edit some parts (including stock-parts) and made some configs.

Gotcha

[Galileo chiu]

will you guys do the D2 Apollo capsule?

[SpaceFace545]

4 minutes ago, Galileo chiu said:

will you guys do the D2 Apollo capsule?

Iirc it was said that they aren’t planning to do proposed apollo concepts.

[Galileo chiu]

Just now, SpaceFace545 said:

Iirc it was said that they aren’t planning to do proposed apollo concepts.

oh ok

[Cheesecake]

7 hours ago, Galileo chiu said:

will you guys do the D2 Apollo capsule?

It`s already done:

It works in Stock too.

[DaveyJ576]

3 hours ago, Cheesecake said:

It`s already done:

It works in Stock too.

Be forewarned that while an excellent piece of work, it lacks a BDB level of refinement. For instance, the CM heat shield isn’t strong enough to survive a reentry from the moon in KSRSS. I had to plus it up in the config file. My favorite part of the mod is the 1962 “Bug” LEM. It flies well but is pretty heavy, which is actually historically accurate. If you use a BDB passive docking port on top it works well with the BDB CSM. 

[Pappystein]

4 hours ago, Cheesecake said:

It`s already done:

It works in Stock too.

It works in stock but it uses LFO instead of LH2O for fuel.   I wrote a patch for it (it is posted on like page 3 of the alternate apollo thread) but it is out of date and did not use either Cyotanks or BDB tanks correctly... and thus is not a great patch.   If someone makes a patch for LH2O better than that please post it to the AlternateApollo forum.

 

Edited January 29, 2022 by Pappystein

[CobaltWolf]

On 1/27/2022 at 12:59 PM, ballisticfox0 said:

Loving the new CM and SM paints!

On 1/27/2022 at 5:08 PM, Adam-Kerman said:

~snip~

Honestly insane

 

20 hours ago, DaveyJ576 said:

@CobaltWolf, @Invaderchaos,  and the dev team,

Some further QoL items to consider:

1. The Block I CSM had a much smaller umbilical connector between the CM and SM. It was also placed almost 180 deg. opposite from the Block II version. See this pic:

  Reveal hidden contents

Would you have to add a new part, or can this be done via a B9PS?

2. I have it on reliable authority (Ed Kyle on the nasaspaceflight.com L2 forums) that Saturn I flights SA-8, 9, & 10 flew with 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. Yes, you can scale down your existing S-IVB IU, or scale up the Titan LDC IU, but the weight and size is off a bit.

3. 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. I was successful in adjusting down the propellent amounts in the CM and SM so that a Saturn I will lift it to a 100 km orbit, but it would be handier to have a part switch for it.

4. 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 and Little Joe 2 flights that had a CM boilerplate, the LES tower was attached directly to the CM.  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. Can the BPC portion of the LES be removed via a B9PS?

Thanks again for everything. I really appreciate how much detail you provide in this mod. Very immersive for this space nut! 

Thanks for reposting this actually, I meant to respond the first time and never got around to it (sorry! )

1) I'd personally rather not because I hate working on the BPC and don't want to have to make a version for a different umbilical. But we can discuss it internally.

2) I kinda made that with the 3.75m switch in the S-IVB IU part. We can see about making a scaled down version of that? The side count would be wrong though...

3) Would have to ask @Jso

4) Same as 1, the LES stuff is sort of hanging together from a thread since we reused the old PEBKAC tower. I, uh, actually seem to have misplaced the files for it. I think I can find them but yeah.

 

16 hours ago, JoeSheridan said:

Yes please. That´s a perfect addition for my ongoing long term streaming world. I have (together with a lot of other mods) Tantares and BDB on my world a i will use the RL and ETS Apollos a lot and i will use them often in joint flight´s with the soviets. And you give us the perfect Docking-Adapter, both for Apollo-Soyuz and as a nice fitting addition for Spacelab / a lot of other stations i plan to built.

And @CobaltWolf I would like to ask if there was made any decision regarding the B9-Part Switch integration for the J-2´s? (and Perhaps other engines that don´t have them yet?) will that come and would there defenitely be a craft-break with the introduction?  Yes, i know: Using the Dev-Branch means: Be Prepared for Craft-File-Breaks, but i just looooove the new parts.... they can give my twitch series just a much much better Style when i get to Apollo.  But for the moment i have stoped to develop parts of my "Story" that would need the J-2-Variants / Every Saturn Except the Saturn I / Juno V. And i justwould like to know: Is it better to wait out that transition to B9 and just play out the "Russian" Side of my story first, or is it safe to use the J-2´s / Engines that probably get updatet too.

Gonna be real here - I'm feeling lazy and don't really want to have to go back and make that change unless there's a really strong push for it. So you're probably fine.

 

13 hours ago, Galileo chiu said:

will you guys do the D2 Apollo capsule?

Maybe some day, but it wouldn't be for years

[OrbitalManeuvers]

2 hours ago, Pappystein said:

It works in stock but it uses LFO instead of LH2O for fuel.

you'd want LH2 on a lunar mission?

[Jcking]

1 minute ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:

you'd want LH2 on a lunar mission?

It's what D-2 (and most of the early Apollo proposals used).

[OrbitalManeuvers]

Just now, Jcking said:

It's what D-2 (and most of the early Apollo proposals used).

oh now i need to dig up some of this info. they had a plan for it? or did this contribute to the this design getting friendzoned?

[Pappystein]

1 hour ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:

you'd want LH2 on a lunar mission?

 

1 hour ago, Jcking said:

It's what D-2 (and most of the early Apollo proposals used).

When D-2, and many other proposals were being developed, Centaur had not flown yet.   It was BELIEVED that the tank Pressure vessel would be strong enough to complete the boiloff cycle (Gas transfers back to liquid state due to the pressure gradient.)      Embitterment due to cold of the then available metals was not considered...  Adequately.  Same can be said for the ability to retain pressure in a Vacuum (this is honestly the biggest part of the problem.)  The Amount of pressure a tank can hold inside of it is ACTIVELY ASSISTED by the outside air-pressure... Air-pressure = 0 ATM, then you have a lower INTERNAL maximum pressure vs when the Air-pressure is 1ATM or whatever.       I am dramatically oversimplifying it here but you can get the idea.

1 hour ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:

oh now i need to dig up some of this info. they had a plan for it? or did this contribute to the this design getting friendzoned?

Mostly D-2 was not picked because it wasn't a 3 man Conic capsule.    The Hydrolox issue not being relevant to the decision until after Centaur first flight.

 

[Beccab]

39 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

Mostly D-2 was not picked because it wasn't a 3 man Conic capsule.    The Hydrolox issue not being relevant to the decision until after Centaur first flight.

That could be an interesting alt history, the US selecting a hydrolox lander/CM and having to reevaluate all of that in 1963