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

[DaveyJ576]

1 hour ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:

Couple questions:

2. Is anyone using the CoM offset feature of the Apollo CM? Idk how well KSP allows something like this to work, but are you guys messing with your EDL trajectory using this? If so, when?

I have been experimenting with it, and it is my impression of watching the reentry that it does not have an effect on the landing spot. I have read up on how to use this feature, and I understand how the vehicle must be oriented during reentry in order to be able to steer the landing spot. Yes, I have SAS turned off. But to my Mk. 1 Mod 0 eyeball it doesn't seem to have much effect. Admittedly I haven't actually done any actual measurements so I can't be sure. There is also the possibility that my still developing KSP-mojo isn't sufficient to work the feature properly.

In short, it doesn't seem to work! 

[Zorg]

4 hours ago, Cdodders said:

What about a Saturn-Shuttle adaptor section, or at least Saturn-EFT adaptor?

 

We have a SII to 5m adapter which should work well enough I think.

3 hours ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:

Couple questions:

1. In light of the J2/J2X discussion, what is the "Sarnus-HE2JX-447 Dnoces-X" aiming for?

2. Is anyone using the CoM offset feature of the Apollo CM? Idk how well KSP allows something like this to work, but are you guys messing with your EDL trajectory using this? If so, when?

The J2X designation was used for a number of extended bell J2 improvement proposals at Rocketdyne decades before constellation. They had to be creative since this was before simple carbon carbon extensions became available. While designs like the XLR129 used fully regen extensions, Rocketdyne looked at a number of different options of which we thought the airmat inflatable nozzle extension was the coolest. You might call this the real J2X.

 

 

7 hours ago, Taaaa said:

Hi! I want to see H-IIA and H-IIB! There are MOD for H-II, the ancestor of H-IIAB, but there are no good H-IIA, B ...
This isn't an American rocket but it would be very cool.

 

 

 

 

 

Thats out of scope for us. But Im aware of a project by a couple of people that might be very interesting  I cant say much or who since they haven't announced it publicly but hopefully that could see the light of day sometime.

Edited February 8, 2022 by Zorg

[OrbitalManeuvers]

1 hour ago, DaveyJ576 said:

I have been experimenting with it, and...

Thank you, I was hoping someone had given it a go beyond theory. I'll give it a go too and see what happens. 

[pTrevTrevs]

4 hours ago, Cdodders said:

What about a Saturn-Shuttle adaptor section, or at least Saturn-EFT adaptor?

 

Pretty sure we've already got one. Some people have done Saturn-Shuttle builds and posted pictures of them either here or in the Shuttle Adventures thread in Mission Reports.

3 hours ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:

Couple questions:

1. In light of the J2/J2X discussion, what is the "Sarnus-HE2JX-447 Dnoces-X" aiming for?

2. Is anyone using the CoM offset feature of the Apollo CM? Idk how well KSP allows something like this to work, but are you guys messing with your EDL trajectory using this? If so, when?

So, I have noticed a very slight effect from the offset CoM. In order to test how well it works I checked my landing point prediction in MechJeb and then assigned a landing target as close to it as I could on the map view. During reentry I spun the capsule and watched the MJ readout showing my projected distance from the target to see if it changed. It did fluctuate a little bit and I was able to steer myself slightly closer to my target, but the cross-range was so low (and recovery logistics so unimportant in KSP anyway) that I decided it wasn't really practical to use.

Another time during a particularly high-G reentry I swear I was able to lower my rate of descent enough to keep the crew from passing out from the acceleration, but for all I know that could be a placebo effect at work. Now I do my lunar reentries by pointing down into the atmosphere early on to make certain that I'm not going to overshoot my landing area or bounce off back into space, then rotate back around to point up when the deceleration reaches peak levels to mitigate the G-forces and prevent G-LOC, then point downward again between exiting plasma blackout and deploying drogue chutes to eliminate any lingering horizontal movement. It probably doesn't do much other than make me feel more comfortable about the whole thing, but it is what it is.

[OrbitalManeuvers]

13 minutes ago, pTrevTrevs said:

So, I have noticed a very slight effect from the offset CoM.

OK I did a little mucking about and here's my results. This is KSRSS at 2.5x, orbit was 200km.

First image: Deorbit burn was done before hitting the western coast of South America, Pe hitting off the east coast in the water just beyond Kourou, too short on purpose so I could hit land. The other craft in orbit came from the same vessel, and so I'm using its orbit line as a marker to measure my deflection. CoM was shifted prior to atmosphere, SAS off, hatch rotated to face south for a north/south deflection hopefully. Figured I wouldn't be able to detect a shorter/longer deflection.

Second image: capsule offset from above

Last image: the results.  So on the ground, I would say we've deflected many (hundreds of?) kilometers, though from the map view of course it looks unimpressive. I don't think my KSP mojo is quite at the level of take advantage of this, but it looks like if you needed some last minute precision adjustment, it's certainly possible, to a degree. The atmo curve of KSRSS is a tiny bit different than JNSQ once you're below about 21k (iirc) but above there they're quite similar, so I'd expect pretty similar results there.

Spoiler

Capsule deflection as seen from above:

And here are the results:

 

[Razgriz1]

1 hour ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:

Last image: the results.  So on the ground, I would say we've deflected many (hundreds of?) kilometers, though from the map view of course it looks unimpressive. I don't think my KSP mojo is quite at the level of take advantage of this, but it looks like if you needed some last minute precision adjustment, it's certainly possible, to a degree. The atmo curve of KSRSS is a tiny bit different than JNSQ once you're below about 21k (iirc) but above there they're quite similar, so I'd expect pretty similar results there.

I've done some messing around with shuttle reentries in 2.5x KSRSS and I can tell you that the stock atmosphere and aerodynamics model just aren't that good for reentry steering. Even with a shuttle, that has a much higher lifting capacity than the Apollo capsule, I was still only seeing ~100-200 km of crossrange. With FAR, however, you get a lot more (~1000-1500 km or therabouts) which is more in line with how far the actual shuttle could change its trajectory. I haven't really looked into how FAR affects capsule reentry crossrange, but it might be interesting. I'll have to look into it some.

[pTrevTrevs]

Apollo 17 Part 1: Last But Not Least, and Also Not Last:

     For most of human history, the far side of the Moon has been shrouded in mystery and speculation. Entirely invisible to observers on Earth due to the Moon's tidal lock, men have spent millennia wondering what that unknown yet just-out-of-reach place could be like. It wasn't until 1959, when an American Juno II rocket launched Pioneer 3 around the Moon [Author's Time-Line] that humanity received its first glimpses at the region. The grainy and colorless photos revealed something which to many on Earth appeared anticlimactic, to say the least; the Moon is barely any different on this side than on the one with which we're familiar. To the geologists and astronomers under NASA's umbrella, however, the far side had a few distinct differences. First, the area was almost totally devoid of lunar mare, the dark, volcanic lowland regions which cover a significant portion of the near side. Second, compared to the near side, the far side was absolutely peppered with impact craters. This wasn't unsurprising, as the near side's oldest craters were likely covered up by the eruption of the lava flows which formed the mare. That great volcanic cataclysm which masked the scars of the near side had also complicated Project Apollo's efforts to acquire samples of the old lunar crust, and although highland material from before the formation of the mare had been recovered on Apollos 15 and 16, scientists still wondered if yet more ancient material could be retrieved from the far side. 

     The decision to send an Apollo crew to the far side was not taken lightly, and many within NASA remained opposed to it right up to the day of launch. By 1970 it was clear that Apollo's days were numbered. Apollo 20 had been cancelled in favor of additional funding for Skylab and Apollo Applications. Apollos 18 and 19 also came under fire in April and May of that year, however the highly successful missions of Apollos 13 and 14 provided the administration with the evidence and trustworthiness it needed to convince Congress to finance the final two missions alongside a refit of their Saturn V launch vehicles. Still, with landing sites confirmed up to Apollo 16, there remained only three landings left. In an effort to squeeze as much of a return out of these final three flights as possible, radical mission planners began to lobby for landing sites that would have been laughed out of the room in 1969, from the great ray crater Tycho to the South Pole, to the far side. In particular, the farside advocates argued for a prominent crater known as Tsiolkovsky, named for the great Russian rocket scientist of the early 20th century. Here they would find much more than just the prestige of a far side landing; Tsiolkovsky was a geological treasure trove in its own right. The gigantic central peak within the crater could contain material forced up from deep within the far-side's crust, and the lowest areas of the crater had been filled in with volcanic mare material, making Tsiolkovsky one of the few places on the far side to feature such terrain. The questions raised by this unique region were infinite. Would the mare at Tsiolkovsky differ chemically from what was seen on the near side? Just how old would the material be around the crater rim? What kind of primordial relics could be embedded in the central peak? As these questions tugged at the back of the geologists' minds, two more Apollo landings proceeded smoothly, each one pushing the envelope a little bit farther. New hardware entered the field enabling more advanced exploration, while the astronauts, flight controllers, and technicians gathered ever more experience and familiarity with those systems already in operation. Fearful again of losing the American public's attention (and funding along with it), NASA Administrators reluctantly authorized studies into the feasibility of a Tsiolkovsky landing.

     The extra technical hurdles were considerable; with no Earth overhead the astronauts on the surface would require a communications relay to link them to their flight controllers in Houston, and the lighting conditions required for an Apollo landing necessitated a highly unorthodox launch window. For the first time in American space history, a manned spacecraft would be launched from the Cape under cover of night, in order to reach the Tsiolkovsky basin just as the sun was rising. Furthermore, with the far side itself being illuminated for the astronauts on the ground, the near side would be in darkness, and invisible from Earth. To surmount the communications problem, NASA acquired two Nimbus weather satellite busses and a pair of Titan 23C rockets to launch them. Each satellite was modified to serve as a communication relay from the Moon's L4 and L5 Lagrangian points, but when further studies showed that only one satellite at the L5 was necessary, the spare was rebuilt as a scientific spacecraft to supplement the upcoming radar mapping experiments on Apollos 17 and 18. The mission profile underwent massive changes from its inception to its execution, with some coming to refer to it as the "J+ Mission", for all its added complexity compared to what had come before. Thanks to this, the launch date slipped further and further back, from July to December of 1972. At long last, however, on a cold winter night at KSC Saturn V SA-512 began its journey to the unknown...

Quote

All along the Florida coast and even as far north as the Carolinas, a bright pillar of flame could be seen slowly rising skyward. Apollo 17 was not the first night launch from the Cape, however nothing so massive or so powerful as the Saturn V had ever been flown in darkness before. Truly, it was a sight to behold.

While the launch, TLI, and docking went along as usual, the crew and controllers began to feel strange. Apollo 17's commander was on his second voyage to lunar space and by now most flight controllers were themselves veterans of multiple Apollo landings, but unlike past missions Apollo 17 launched when the Moon was in its waning phase. The Earth appeared the opposite of how it did on past flights, as a slightly gibbous crescent out the LMP's rendezvous window, rather than a thin crescent in the commander's view. The "not-quite-right" feeling would linger, as the spacecraft America and Challenger arrived in lunar orbit only to find familiar landmarks on the near side obscured in darkness, while previously unseen regions of the far side were fully illuminated.

Another unique aspect of this mission would be the Lunar Orbit Insertion. Unlike previous flights which performed LOI behind the Moon out of radio contact with Earth, Apollo 17 was able to maintain communications through the entire maneuver by relaying through the Apollo Far Side Relay. As America passed behind the Moon on each revolution, it would spend a mere ten to fifteen minutes out of radio contact with Earth, about a third of what previous flights could expect.

Apollo 17 also received a view of the Earth which no crew had seen previously. While the Moon was waning as viewed from Earth, the Earth appeared to grow brighter and brighter from the moon as the mission progressed. By the time Challenger lifted off from the surface it was practically full, hanging in the void as a distant blue pearl.

Before beginning their sleep period to prepare for the next day's landing, the crew placed the combined spacecraft in the descent orbit. As it remained there throughout most of the next day, the command module skimmed across mountaintops and ridges, at times overflying them by a mere 3,000 meters. The crew took some of this time to photograph the far side from this low altitude, capturing boulders and small craters which could not be detected from the standard 25km orbit.

As the fifth day of the mission began, the crew entered Challenger and powered it up for the flight to the surface. After undocking the two ships photographed each other according to standard procedure, and then bid farewell as America burned its engine to re-enter its standard orbit.

Challenger, meanwhile, began the long process of slowing down, before gliding to a touchdown just north of Tsiolkovsky's central peak.

The actual landing site ended up a little further south than intended thanks to a twitchy RCS quad disrupting the powered descent, but Challenger was still well within the reach of its surface targets. As the crew began preparations for their first moonwalk, the CMP aboard America began his three-day schedule of observations from orbit...

 

Quote

America was the third command module to feature the Scientific Instrument Module, but the experiments it carried were different from those flown before. While the two camera systems were retained, Apollo 17 swapped out the spectrometer booms and subsatellite for an advanced radar sounding apparatus which would construct high-resolution altimetric maps of the lunar surface using the three antennas extending from the aft end of the service module. Additionally, a new infrared radiometer and ultraviolet spectrometer experiment provided a hitherto unseen look at the particle environments and surface composition of the Moon.

 

Frustratingly, about half of the screenshots I had selected to upload just... didn't work for some reason, like imgur just forgot to upload them. So, I guess they'll just be moved into the second part of this. Not a big deal, I guess, but damn that's annoying. I pay how much a month for internet, again?

[Taaaa]

3 hours ago, Zorg said:

We have a SII to 5m adapter which should work well enough I think.

The J2X designation was used for a number of extended bell J2 improvement proposals at Rocketdyne decades before constellation. They had to be creative since this was before simple carbon carbon extensions became available. While designs like the XLR129 used fully regen extensions, Rocketdyne looked at a number of different options of which we thought the airmat inflatable nozzle extension was the coolest. You might call this the real J2X.

 

 

Thats out of scope for us. But Im aware of a project by a couple of people that might be very interesting  I cant say much or who since they haven't announced it publicly but hopefully that could see the light of day sometime.

Thanks for the information.  can't wait to be released!

[Pappystein]

9 hours ago, KeaKaka said:

 

I know Zorg has already covered much of this, including the same graphic I used in my Origional post on 11/8/2021.

 

J-2X WAS the design and Development program to Improve the J-2 Engine for Saturn.    the Results are, in tree form:

                                                            J-2

                                                            J-2S *THIS is the original J-2X!

             2nd  J-2X family                 J-2L (aka Linear Test-bed Engine and a member of the 2nd J-2X family),   J-2T (Aka Torroidal Aerospike Engine and the last member of the J-2X family)

Then Much latter, the 2nd J-2X family would be altered SLIGHTLY to become the XRS-2200 for the X-30/X-33 Program.

The  2nd J-2X family was essentially the Original J-2X (aka the now named J-2S) with new bell construction techniques to provide for a Higher ISP efficiency.  

Zorg's image shows;

the Aerobell.    Where a Flexible material bell would be "extruded" (more accurate than saying extended) while in flight.  

The Extending bell.  In this case it would have been a ten segment bell extension.   Much like the 1, 2 and 3 piece extensions we have today... but more complicated and fragile.

and the Air-mat.   Air-Mat utilized Turbopump Exhaust to inflate a flexible mesh bell.    THAT is what is in BDB today.

[Morphisor]

10 hours ago, pTrevTrevs said:

...the highly successful missions of Apollos 13 and...

[blu3wolf]

For the BDB team: This is some really impressive work. Thanks so much.

Below Ive added some screenshots from my current Gemini-inspired mission. Per @Friznit's helpful wiki, I saw that a proposal was made for a Moon landing cheaper and faster than Apollo could achieve. Well in my current career playthrough, I simply lack the funds to purchase the Sarnus and Kane parts necessary for recreating Apollo at this stage, but I might well be able to manage a Mun landing using the Leo parts. The simplest approach seemed to be sending up an Inon stage to orbit for a Leo capsule to dock with, then use the Inon stage for the TMI burn.

Spoiler

Here we have the Bossart-1X launching a pair of Inon stages. The lower of the two is for achieving orbit, the upper is the Inon Transfer Vehicle.

The ascent seems a little steep, but with the Bossart launchers that isnt surprising, or even terribly problematic.

The sustainer phase takes some time, with the low TWR.

Did I saw low TWR? Then what do you call this??

This is the fourth launch of this payload... so far making this the biggest expense of the program. The stage took about another 3 minutes after this point to circularise, and it arrested the descent rate at about 80200 m.

The upper stage can conveniently de-orbit itself once it has delivered the payload to orbit.

Meanwhile the launchpad has been reconditioned, ready for the Leo-4 crew to ascend.

The Leo capsule for this mission features a conjoined service and equipment module. It is also a much easier payload to get to orbit with!

Like the Inon Transfer Vehicle, it features a sustainer phase - although this is much quicker and easier for the lighter Leo capsule.

From the initial parking orbit, a rendezvous is planned. Old hands have likely spotted the issue before I did: the rendezvous is on the dark side. Whoops!

Finally in position to dock. The anticipation is real, and yet the mission is still just beginning.

Successfully docked with the ITV!

The Leo-4 mission is well underway. While this one is a munar flyby only, it will be an important stepping stone to the program's aim to put a Kerbal on the Mun, and bring them back again.

I've played a fair bit of KSP, but not with BDB before - you've revitalised the game for me. Thank you.

Edited February 9, 2022 by blu3wolf
One more!

[GoldForest]

3 hours ago, Morphisor said:

They're doing an alternate history run.

Edited February 9, 2022 by GoldForest

[bigyihsuan]

5 hours ago, blu3wolf said:

-snip-

Love the Gemini-derived Moon program, it really makes you scratch your head when trying to use hardware not meant for the purpose, hehe

Looks like you're doing a multi-launch approach, where I just shoved everything onto a massive Barbarian rocket and did it all in 1 launch. I look forward to seeing you doing the landing!

[Jacktical]

Have you ever thought of adding the new atlas  GEM-63SRBs? 

[Pappystein]

1 hour ago, Jacktical said:

Have you ever thought of adding the new atlas  GEM-63SRBs? 

Are the GEM-63s not in the BDB Adjacent Vulcan mod?     It has been a while since I have looked at those files so I honestly don't know

 

 

[blu3wolf]

5 hours ago, bigyihsuan said:

Looks like you're doing a multi-launch approach, where I just shoved everything onto a massive Barbarian rocket and did it all in 1 launch.

I'm hedging my bets. Getting the Inon Transfer Vehicle to orbit took 4 attempts with minor redesigns each time. That was costly. Had I attempted to launch one big rocket and it failed, that would be the end of this career save - I'm very tight on funds at present.

Ive researched the Sarnus S-I rocket parts, but the launcher ends up around 40,000 funds, which is a significant portion of what I have. So I don't really have a launcher that would do this all in one go. I suppose that is the same issue the Gemini planners thought to solve, so it seems an apt solution.

I'm still a few missions away from landing. Leo-5 is planning to enter munar orbit and conduct additional science before returning home. Leo-6 will conduct Munar Orbit Rendezvous with a prelaunched Leo Belle Target Vehicle to demonstrate the possibility, and Leo-7 is slated to be the landing, using the Dona lander. Funding will be tight, so I'll be looking out for opportunities to fit contracts in.

[pTrevTrevs]

14 hours ago, Morphisor said:

 

[CAPFlyer]

Okay, hit a major stumbling block tonight.  I'm trying to kitbash Pegasus until the actual parts are released.  Using stock girders and the MOL solar arrays (resized to not clip the Boilerplate Apollo "Service Module".  However, despite reducing the decoupler to 10% force, every time I try to decouple the Apollo Boilerplate and Service Module, it jumps off at an odd angle, explodes everything, and causes the S-IV to go tumbling.  I checked during construction to make sure I'm not clipping anything, so does anyone have an idea of what's going on?  It's a major blocker for me.

[TaintedLion]

1 hour ago, CAPFlyer said:

Okay, hit a major stumbling block tonight.  I'm trying to kitbash Pegasus until the actual parts are released.  Using stock girders and the MOL solar arrays (resized to not clip the Boilerplate Apollo "Service Module".  However, despite reducing the decoupler to 10% force, every time I try to decouple the Apollo Boilerplate and Service Module, it jumps off at an odd angle, explodes everything, and causes the S-IV to go tumbling.  I checked during construction to make sure I'm not clipping anything, so does anyone have an idea of what's going on?  It's a major blocker for me.

I was having this until I made sure the ballast option in the boilerplate service module was turned off since that changes the model slightly.

[blu3wolf]

So, the bottom of the Leo-C Service Module has a flat base with a crew tunnel to it. Would it be possible to have a similar model for a Leo-A Equipment module? Either as a separate part, or as a part switch for the Meduci-E?

Im planning on building a Leo Modular Space Station, and the original series A plans seem to use a "Gemini Transport" which appears to be a regular Gemini capsule with a crew tunnel to a Ring Docking Mechanism - much like the current Leo-C part, but with the ability to separate the Equipment Module still and fire the Retro Module.

I think for now, my current LMSS plans will just use the Leo-C module, as its not like I really need the ability to use the Retro Module for my current Leo Transport design.

Edit: The first Leo Transport constructed has used the Leo-A modules, while I disregard the gap between the docking adaptor and the module

Edited February 10, 2022 by blu3wolf
updated

[Zorg]

Years after first requested I think, a 3.75m SAF fairing for BDB. Cam be used with the S4 tankage. Its just the S4B fairings scaled down with all the same options

[CAPFlyer]

10 hours ago, TaintedLion said:

I was having this until I made sure the ballast option in the boilerplate service module was turned off since that changes the model slightly.

I'm pretty sure I had it off, but I will check again.  Thanks!

Edited February 10, 2022 by CAPFlyer

[pTrevTrevs]

3 hours ago, Zorg said:

Years after first requested I think, a 3.75m SAF fairing for BDB. Cam be used with the S4 tankage. Its just the S4B fairings scaled down with all the same options

Hmm, not quite the Saturn I, not quite the Saturn IB. What would this hybrid be called, the Saturn IA?

[DaveyJ576]

@CobaltWolf, @Zorg, and the dev team,

I have been running some test missions with the Skylab dry workshop. After gathering data from the science experiments, I have the crew run science in the workshop. When the station passes into the night side, the electrical drain seems to be quite high, on the order of 10 units per second from the workshop batteries. A check of the batteries on the other station components shows a similar, but somewhat slower electrical drain. The rate of overall useage is so high that if I leave science running in the workshop the entire station will run out of power before it gets back to the day side and it will lose attitude control and drift. On one occasion the station drifted into an orientation that prevented it from charging the batteries from the solar panels for an entire orbit!

I fully understand that the station will use battery power while on the night side. But to me it seems as if the rate of useage is unrealistically high while running science. True, I can shut down science while on the night side, but would IRL astronauts have done this? Can this useage rate be adjusted down?

It is also distinctly possible that I am gooning up something very simple here. Please let me know if that is the case. 

[Starhelperdude]

1 hour ago, pTrevTrevs said:

Hmm, not quite the Saturn I, not quite the Saturn IB. What would this hybrid be called, the Saturn IA?

lol had the exact same thought in school