JustDark Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 A user on the Discord was having this issue, reloading back to a Skylab Workshop that has already had its shield ejected causes it to have it again Not my image, credit goes to DG33#0875 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam-Kerman Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 11 minutes ago, JustDark said: A user on the Discord was having this issue, reloading back to a Skylab Workshop that has already had its shield ejected causes it to have it again Not my image, credit goes to DG33#0875 Believe it's caused by the OWS being the Root part instead of the Instrument Unit and as Friznit's Wiki says: "Sarnus-SIVB-IU Instrument Unit (must be the root part)" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSheridan Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 4 hours ago, CobaltWolf said: 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. Thank you for the fast answer And that really wasn´t meant to push you, it was just nice to know Now it´s: All Systems are "Go" for the Saturn-Family. Thanks 44 minutes ago, Adam-Kerman said: Believe it's caused by the OWS being the Root part instead of the Instrument Unit and as Friznit's Wiki says: "Sarnus-SIVB-IU Instrument Unit (must be the root part)" Yeah, an it even is written in the part description ingame that you DON`T have to use the OWS-Parts as a Root-Part itself. Good idea to do that. Part Descriptions are such an important thing to do and BDB really uses that feature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Invaderchaos Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 Just about done modelling the ASTP Docking Adapter! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starhelperdude Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 1 minute ago, Invaderchaos said: Just about done modelling the ASTP Docking Adapter! weird request, but would it be possible that we could get an adapter section where the APAS would be that is 1.25m sizes, so we could have the CADS port on it? This would allow us to use Apollo Block V with for example Space Station Freedom (without needing to use the Block IV Mission Module) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taco Salad Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 Reject C8, embrace Long Saturn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorg Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 7 hours ago, JustDark said: A user on the Discord was having this issue, reloading back to a Skylab Workshop that has already had its shield ejected causes it to have it again Not my image, credit goes to DG33#0875 A part that uses the BDB jettison module like the Skylab workshop or Centaur D cannot be the root part. A note to this effect is in the part description. For Skylab the logical root should be the S4B Instrument Unit. It’s easy to overlook I know and we would rather it not behave like that but according to JSO who does our coding root related bugs are very hard to solve and we don’t have a fix right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorg Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 Just updated MOL solar panel cell textures to match the look we've been using ever since. Everything should broadly match now though there might be small differences in cell size. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taco Salad Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 I have a question for the devs, what is the real world counterpart for the Herakles rocket in BDB? Or is this entirely homebrew. Either or, I really love the look of it and would like to know more about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldForest Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Taco Salad said: I have a question for the devs, what is the real world counterpart for the Herakles rocket in BDB? Or is this entirely homebrew. Either or, I really love the look of it and would like to know more about it. Not one of the devs, but Herakles is the Titan LDC and Titan Barbarian concepts (ldc = large diameter core.) It can also be used to make the 5m(3.125 ksp) Titan V and the Improved Titan. 1 hour ago, Zorg said: Just updated MOL solar panel cell textures to match the look we've been using ever since. Everything should broadly match now though there might be small differences in cell size. Does your Skylab have enough power now? Edited January 30, 2022 by GoldForest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorg Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Taco Salad said: I have a question for the devs, what is the real world counterpart for the Herakles rocket in BDB? Or is this entirely homebrew. Either or, I really love the look of it and would like to know more about it. There have been multiple proposals for "Large Diameter Core" titan rockets as well as the Barbarian. Barbarian was a one off launcher to lift the Zenith Star space borne laser for the SDI program and there was an even madder competing proposal from McDonnel Douglas (a Delta II core with 6 Delta II boosters, and 3 shuttle boosters outside that). Anyway here's a good place to start:https://www.spacelaunchreport.com/titannot.html Check Barbarian, 3L2, 3L4 And LDC Barbarian used 5 engines while the LDCs uses 4 engines. Some online sources will show a picture of a 4 engine test article to illustrate articles about Barbarian but thats incorrect. Edited January 30, 2022 by Zorg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog357 Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 12 hours ago, Invaderchaos said: Just about done modelling the ASTP Docking Adapter! shouldn't the docking target be on the other end of the adaptor? On a related note, would an independent visual docking target be possible? Something that snaps to the node behind the docking port so the position is correct to the axis of the port? I prefer to hand fly my docking, eyeballs out, and not use nav tools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheesecake Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 4 hours ago, birdog357 said: shouldn't the docking target be on the other end of the adaptor? On a related note, would an independent visual docking target be possible? Something that snaps to the node behind the docking port so the position is correct to the axis of the port? I prefer to hand fly my docking, eyeballs out, and not use nav tools. No because this is the target for the Soyuz which was the active part at docking maneuver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pTrevTrevs Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 9 minutes ago, Cheesecake said: No because this is the target for the Soyuz which was the active part at docking maneuver. Didn’t Soyuz use the automatic Igla system, or was it forced to do without it on this one-off mission? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog357 Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Cheesecake said: No because this is the target for the Soyuz which was the active part at docking maneuver. Apollo was the active side because they had more fuel. Looks like there was a target for Soyuz to use although they didn't, and there was a target on Soyuz that Apollo used. Edited January 30, 2022 by birdog357 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starhelperdude Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 would it be possible that we could get a cargo container module for Augustus (like eva parts and BG stuff and stuff)? also, would it be possible that we a SAF fairing for the 2.2m Carrack fairing adapter? I'm thinking about something like a upsized Minotaur fairing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheesecake Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 3 hours ago, birdog357 said: Apollo was the active side because they had more fuel. Looks like there was a target for Soyuz to use although they didn't, and there was a target on Soyuz that Apollo used. Right, for the first docking. At the second docking the Soyuz was the active part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pappystein Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 On 1/29/2022 at 2:51 PM, Beccab said: That could be an interesting alt history, the US selecting a hydrolox lander/CM and having to reevaluate all of that in 1963 As I understand it, the writing was on the wall on the subject of Hydrolox as a storable propellant even in 1961.... *IT APPEARS* that Convair let their collective Ego get ahead of science and to the detriment of Centaur. After all that WAS the reason NASA took over Centaur from Convair Control after the first flight in 1963. It is also the reason most people Believe Centaur C was meant to be a test bird. NASA re-named all the test vehicles, not liking whatever scheme, if any, Convair was using for naming their test articles. Proof that Hydrolox was discounted can be found in 20100027319 on the NTRS.NASA.GOV website. but to summarize: Hydrolox was chosen as a BACKUP proposal by ONE contractor before 1962 and that was the AJ10-133 powered D-2 Apollo from GE. By 1962 I believe GE's main proposal was a Connic 3 person CM with a 4 AJ10 SM (similar to the AJ10-118 from the early delta and able stars) AJ10 in hypergolic form was on every other proposal by 1962. AKA AJ10 was the only engine of choice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jcking Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Pappystein said: Hydrolox was chosen as a BACKUP proposal by ONE contractor before 1962 and that was the AJ10-133 powered D-2 Apollo from GE. By 1962 I believe GE's main proposal was a Connic 3 person CM with a 4 AJ10 SM (similar to the AJ10-118 from the early delta and able stars) AJ10 in hypergolic form was on every other proposal by 1962. AKA AJ10 was the only engine of choice As of May and June of 1961, hydrogen oxygen engines were universal for the recommended configuration for the GE, Convair, and Martin submissions with only the GE entrant during this time having information on the alternate propellant concepts (that I know of, though it is likely that the other entrants investigated other fuels) with Aerojet proposing hydrogen oxygen, Bell proposing hydrogen fluorine, and Thiokol Reaction Motors Division proposing MMH/NTO for the GE entrant. Edited January 31, 2022 by Jcking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustDark Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 Skylab, getting wrecked on Spoiler There should really be a button to auto-destroy the solar panel, I spent like 30 mins trying to give a small decoupler enough mass to break it off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeaKaka Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 22 minutes ago, JustDark said: There should really be a button to auto-destroy the solar panel, I spent like 30 mins trying to give a small decoupler enough mass to break it off Try deploying it around center F-1 cutoff, the aero forces are usually enough to rip the panel to shreds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuriy Istochnikov Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 19 minutes ago, KeaKaka said: Try deploying it around center F-1 cutoff, the aero forces are usually enough to rip the panel to shreds. Automatize via Smart Parts and an action group Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustDark Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 30 minutes ago, KeaKaka said: Try deploying it around center F-1 cutoff, the aero forces are usually enough to rip the panel to shreds. The sources I'm using say that the solar panel likely broke off when Skylab jettisoned from the S-II stage. The MM shield broke off at Mach 1 and heavily damaged the panel, and a separation srb on S-II was enough to rip the panel off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Entr8899 Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 16 minutes ago, JustDark said: The sources I'm using say that the solar panel likely broke off when Skylab jettisoned from the S-II stage. The MM shield broke off at Mach 1 and heavily damaged the panel, and a separation srb on S-II was enough to rip the panel off I think you're missing their point... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorg Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 (edited) 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've made some adjustments to the Skylab masses. For JNSQ 180km x180km at 50 degrees with the S1C defueled to 80% (as recommended by JSO for historical Lunar Mission) it gets into orbit with about 300m/s left. Lift off TWR is around 1.6. I think this is a good place to leave it as it leaves plenty of margin for life support mods etc. Edited January 31, 2022 by Zorg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.