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

[SpaceFace545]

13 minutes ago, Galileo chiu said:

Do you guys think you will add parts for Direct Apollo?

Short answer…

no

[Pudgemountain]

I had some time to kill after a camping trip all I did was test an updated SRB Waterfall and a Prototype Mars Lander.

This is Trippy.

I like these new decals.

The Lander did land and have enough fuel to get to space but just fell short to get a stable orbit. Maybe a skilled pilot will do better.

[GoldForest]

1 hour ago, Galileo chiu said:

Do you guys think you will add parts for Direct Apollo?

Saturn C-8 and Nova have been shot down every time they've been asked for. Cobalt thinks it's an ugly rocket. Don't know how Zorg feels about it, I've forgotten. Invader, Idk either.

If you want C-8 or Nova, you can build it using the 7.5m parts from NFLV, just have to kitbash it.

[Aelfhe1m]

@zakkpaz Because you replaced ModuleActiveRadiator with ModuleSystemHeatRadiator earlier in the patch you also need to change the reference to it in the ModuleB9PartSwitch section. So something like:

Spoiler

// Don't use FOR unless you're the patch is part of the SystemHeat mod
@PART[bluedog_skylab_powerModule_radiator_fixed|bluedog_skylab_powerModule_radiator]:AFTER[SystemHeat]

	<snip> // as before
	
	// change this part
	@MODULE[ModuleB9PartSwitch]:HAS[#moduleID[meshSwitchSide]]
	{
		@SUBTYPE[Double]
		{
			!MODULE {} // delete old module information
			MODULE
			{
				IDENTIFIER
				{
					name = ModuleSystemHeatRadiator // refer to changed name of module
				}
				DATA
				{
					convectiveArea = 18
				}
			}
			MODULE
			{
				IDENTIFIER
				{
					name = ModuleSystemHeat
				}
				DATA
				{
					volume = 0.055
				}
			}
		}
	}
}

 

 

[Jcking]

1 hour ago, GoldForest said:

Saturn C-8 and Nova have been shot down every time they've been asked for. Cobalt thinks it's an ugly rocket. Don't know how Zorg feels about it, I've forgotten. Invader, Idk either.

If you want C-8 or Nova, you can build it using the 7.5m parts from NFLV, just have to kitbash it.

The user was asking about Direct ascent Apollo (of which there were several and some could fit on C-5), not C-8 or the Nova direct ascent vehicles. I’ve believe I remember hearing Cobalt mention that he would be open to (or at least entertained the possibility of) making a direct ascent lander that one would launch using an uprated Saturn V, but that doesn’t mean it’s on the cards as I don’t speak for the BDB team.

Edited July 4, 2022 by Jcking

[Galileo chiu]

2 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Saturn C-8 and Nova have been shot down every time they've been asked for. Cobalt thinks it's an ugly rocket. Don't know how Zorg feels about it, I've forgotten. Invader, Idk either.

If you want C-8 or Nova, you can build it using the 7.5m parts from NFLV, just have to kitbash it.

i mean the lander parts

[septemberWaves]

I definitely recall a few proposals of Apollos with landing stages being discussed here a little while back. It'd be a cool thing to see if there's any interest in actually putting it in game.

[GoldForest]

5 hours ago, Jcking said:

The user was asking about Direct ascent Apollo (of which there were several and some could fit on C-5), not C-8 or the Nova direct ascent vehicles. I’ve believe I remember hearing Cobalt mention that he would be open to (or at least entertained the possibility of) making a direct ascent lander that one would launch using an uprated Saturn V, but that doesn’t mean it’s on the cards as I don’t speak for the BDB team.

 

4 hours ago, Galileo chiu said:

i mean the lander parts

Ah, sorry. I hear Direct Ascent and assume Saturn C-8 or Nova since most options I see call for them. I don't think I've seen any Saturn V direct ascent proposals, and by that i mean personally. 

Edited July 4, 2022 by GoldForest

[Galileo chiu]

1 hour ago, GoldForest said:

 

Ah, sorry. I hear Direct Ascent and assume Saturn C-8 or Nova since most options I see call for them. I don't think I've seen any Saturn V direct ascent proposals. 

true

[GoldForest]

Full album:  Imgur: The magic of the Internet

[DaveyJ576]

2 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Full album:  Imgur: The magic of the Internet

Great idea! I have wanted to do my own Moonlab since I read about it in Voyage. I have a real life question though. Would the deployed solar panels have survived the fairly substantial Delta V maneuvers of TLI and LOI? Once deployed, how did they stay deployed? My layman’s interpretation would be that they would not be deployed until the engine had completed its work, but then you may run into a problem with having enough EC to get all the way to lunar orbit. 

[GoldForest]

5 minutes ago, DaveyJ576 said:

Great idea! I have wanted to do my own Moonlab since I read about it in Voyage. I have a real life question though. Would the deployed solar panels have survived the fairly substantial Delta V maneuvers of TLI and LOI? Once deployed, how did they stay deployed? My layman’s interpretation would be that they would not be deployed until the engine had completed its work, but then you may run into a problem with having enough EC to get all the way to lunar orbit. 

The engine had fairly low TWR. .4ish to .5ish, so acceleration wouldn't be too much of a problem. I actually did run into EC problem, I forgot to orient the wetlab to face the sun. (Cheated electricity back in)

As for IRL, considering the panels flew off easily, they'd probably leave them close and put some secondary power generation, such as a smaller fixed solar panel that could better survive acceleration. Or install a self contained fuel cell which the crew could discard after they arrive.

[Beccab]

8 hours ago, GoldForest said:

 

Ah, sorry. I hear Direct Ascent and assume Saturn C-8 or Nova since most options I see call for them. I don't think I've seen any Saturn V direct ascent proposals, and by that i mean personally. 

There ya go! "Direct flight study using Saturn C-5 for Apollo project", from february 1963 (6 months after the LOR decision, pics are inside the spoiler)

Spoiler

Also since I had some free time, here's its recreation in KSP
 

Quote

[Pappystein]

14 hours ago, Galileo chiu said:

Do you guys think you will add parts for Direct Apollo?

The Question has already been answered... and I promise I won't try to growl this time with my response (it isn't you Galileo Chiu... it is the question and what causes everyone to ask it that I get angry about all the time.)  

So  TL:DR Version:

Direct Apollo was a Proof of concept to prove that DIRECT FLIGHTS WERE BAD!

not just bad but REALLY OUTRAGEOUSLY STUPIDLY BAD!

 

Long Version:

The SUPPOSED Saturn C-8... is a study done as part of the Saturn C-2 and C-3 programs (and it is well documented in the 1960 documents.)   It was a case study to show why Tinker-Toy, or more modernly LEGO, construction in Orbit was Cheaper and QUICKER.    IE it would not have been until about 1971-72 that An Apollo Direct could have landed on the moon.   That time line does not include time for any delays.   The unknowns in Earth Orbit Construction vs the long Delay caused by a  Direct rocket prompted the LOR decision which could be done on time and safer than either Direct or EOR/Tinker-Toy.   For point of reference the Plan in until Early 1961 was to launch multiple Saturn Rockets with inline docking S-IVB stages.   These S-IVB stages would be powered by a Slush-fuel Liquid Hydrogen and LOX.   The stage was latter designated S-IVC when the idea was re-visited for the Eros and Mars flyby missions.    Several of these stages (If I recall correctly 4) would fire off in series to launch a fully equipped Apollo Capsule and lander combination... (the Capsule was to land on the Moon.)  

Saturn S-IV stage sidetrack:

Spoiler

Spoilered this to keep the rest of the conversation on Apollo Direct, readable.   But a lot is glossed over on the S-IV, S-IVB, and S-IVC discussion front.

To start with, at the time of the selection of Lunar Orbital Rezdenvois,  the S-IV stages were as follows:

220" Diameter S-IV with 4x RL10B-3 (USAF XLR-119) engines

260" Diameter S-IVB with 1x or 2x LH2 engines.  This stage was the most complex part of the joint Apollo and Saturn programs.   Details of both of these stages are below!

275" Diameter (260" internal diameter) Low Earth Orbit Tug.   This was a Hypergolic RCS-powered tug that could help orient and position stages.   Basically it was about 275" by 30" in outer dimension.  I believe an RTG would have provided electrical power to this in a flight article.

 

On the S-IV stage:

Failure of the RL10B-3 to generate the required thrust and ISP brought about a significant restructuring of the Saturn C-2 rocket.  The C-2 rocket would need enhanced 2nd and 3rd stages to carry the payload of a full-up Apollo Lunar lander system (Apollo Capsule and Ascent/return stages.)  This resulted in the cancelation of the 220" Diameter S-III stage.   The S-III stage was replaced with a larger four-engine 260" Diameter S-II (C-2) stage.   All these changes allowed for the loss of efficiency when making the S-IV stage larger to accept 6 of the lower quality RL10A-3S engines.  The C-2 would still be able to carry the Moon lander to Low Orbit, but the failure of the Rl10B-3 effectively destroyed its payload reserves.

 

On the S-IVB stage:

At the time there was no "simple S-IVB" stage.   The S-IVB stage, initially envisioned by MSFC, would be a self-docking, auto refueling affair.  In orbit, the S-IVB would join several similar stages in series.   The combined train of S-IVB stages would burn one stage after the next to carry the  Apollo Lunar Lander Capsule to the Moon and allow it to land and return.     

There was no decision yet on what would become the J-2 Engine.   Aerojet was technically in the lead (winning 10 of 11 scoring points) with the more refined engine doing the required work but was under a strict "CRASH PROGRAM" for the USAF and could not devote the time needed to produce the LR87-LH2 for comparison to the Rocketdyne alternative.

The S-IVB stage at the time had an advanced Computer allowing autopilot and auto-docking.  The Saturn IU would also hold the "female" version of the inline docking port.   The Engine mount would include a Structural "male" docking port.  When connected Electrical and data lines would span across these docking ports.

On the sides of the S-IVB would be a parallel docking port to allow fuel to be added to both the LOX and S-LH2 tanks.  As you can imagine this was a very complex arrangement of pipes and structures that we were struggling to grasp at the time (it is doubtful to me if with 2020s technology we could EASILY do all of this!)  They were still using Slide-rules to do all the calculations *WOW*!

As a result of the decision to go to LOR instead of EOR/EOC, the Saturn S-IVB was dramatically simplified (basic structure and engine remained the same everything else was new) and the Inline Docking S-IVB as initially proposed?  It became the S-IVC (no, not the Eyes turned skyward S-IVC!)

As I said, I separated this to keep the rest of the document readable.   I hope this helps understand some of the WHY things went the way they did.

About the time of the Apollo MLV program (1967-1969) a NASA document (Houston not MSFC) re-issued a drawing of the C-2 era Direct Apollo rocket and labeled it Saturn C-8.   The document in question was part of a packet sent to the US Congress for information on alternative rockets to Saturn in the Post Lunar phase.    Then in Nova 3rd Generation (yes there were THREE NOVA Programs!) someone threw said "Saturn Direct" study in and again labeled it as Saturn C-8.  I can find no documents that Von Braun or MSFC actually submitted this idea.  This is all followed up by modern internet sloppy documentation and miss-quoting  by Astronautix doing another Great job of posting things without proper documentation and no real-world facts to stand on.... And then Astronautix quoting Wikipedia as a source when Wikipedia quotes Astronautix as a source... (it happens on many but not all of the Titan and Saturn Pages)

There are three reasons the re-submitted Apollo direct does not make sense:

1. Nova3G was supposed to be BIGGER than anything in the Saturn Structure of rockets could lift.   I GUESS if you surrounded the Direct Apollo Saturn with 6x AJ-260s you MIGHT get ALMOST enough payload to orbit....
2. The Mission had changed but the stages stay the same... Not conducive to big lift to either Low orbit or escape trajectories
3. Congress (and NASA!) wanted NEW technology... there was nothing NEW about Apollo Direct Ascent.  It used Saturn Avionics, Engines, and structural design just made larger ad-nauseam

 Point 3 is the biggest sticking point to the whole argument that Apollo Direct Ascent was EVER meant to fly.   ADA or renamed Saturn C-8 is the litmus test as to if a proposal is worthy of looking into or not for big Lunar or Interplanetary rockets.   Nothing else.
 

As an aside... when did Tinker toys go from all wood to all plastic?!

 

12 hours ago, Galileo chiu said:

i mean the lander parts

I guess I should read all the posts before Writing a Novel answer eh?

1 hour ago, Beccab said:

There ya go! "Direct flight study using Saturn C-5 for Apollo project", from february 1963 (6 months after the LOR decision, pics are inside the spoiler)

  Reveal hidden contents

Also since I had some free time, here's its recreation in KSP
 

Impressed!  What parts and engines did you end up using?

[GoldForest]

@Pappystein Did you miss the part about them only wanting the landers or did you want to get the rage out of your system about C-8/Nova? 

[Beccab]

3 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

The Question has already been answered... and I promise I won't try to growl this time with my response (it isn't you Galileo Chiu... it is the question and what causes everyone to ask it that I get angry about all the time.)  

So  TL:DR Version:

Direct Apollo was a Proof of concept to prove that DIRECT FLIGHTS WERE BAD!

not just bad but REALLY OUTRAGEOUSLY STUPIDLY BAD!

 

Long Version:

The SUPPOSED Saturn C-8... is a study done as part of the Saturn C-2 and C-3 programs (and it is well documented in the 1960 documents.)   It was a case study to show why Tinker-Toy, or more modernly LEGO, construction in Orbit was Cheaper and QUICKER.    IE it would not have been until about 1971-72 that An Apollo Direct could have landed on the moon.   That time line does not include time for any delays.   The unknowns in Earth Orbit Construction vs the long Delay caused by a  Direct rocket prompted the LOR decision which could be done on time and safer than either Direct or EOR/Tinker-Toy.   For point of reference the Plan in until Early 1961 was to launch multiple Saturn Rockets with inline docking S-IVB stages.   These S-IVB stages would be powered by a Slush-fuel Liquid Hydrogen and LOX.   The stage was latter designated S-IVC when the idea was re-visited for the Eros and Mars flyby missions.    Several of these stages (If I recall correctly 4) would fire off in series to launch a fully equipped Apollo Capsule and lander combination... (the Capsule was to land on the Moon.)  

Saturn S-IV stage sidetrack:

  Reveal hidden contents

Spoilered this to keep the rest of the conversation on Apollo Direct, readable.   But a lot is glossed over on the S-IV, S-IVB, and S-IVC discussion front.

To start with, at the time of the selection of Lunar Orbital Rezdenvois,  the S-IV stages were as follows:

220" Diameter S-IV with 4x RL10B-3 (USAF XLR-119) engines

260" Diameter S-IVB with 1x or 2x LH2 engines.  This stage was the most complex part of the joint Apollo and Saturn programs.   Details of both of these stages are below!

275" Diameter (260" internal diameter) Low Earth Orbit Tug.   This was a Hypergolic RCS-powered tug that could help orient and position stages.   Basically it was about 275" by 30" in outer dimension.  I believe an RTG would have provided electrical power to this in a flight article.

 

On the S-IV stage:

Failure of the RL10B-3 to generate the required thrust and ISP brought about a significant restructuring of the Saturn C-2 rocket.  The C-2 rocket would need enhanced 2nd and 3rd stages to carry the payload of a full-up Apollo Lunar lander system (Apollo Capsule and Ascent/return stages.)  This resulted in the cancelation of the 220" Diameter S-III stage.   The S-III stage was replaced with a larger four-engine 260" Diameter S-II (C-2) stage.   All these changes allowed for the loss of efficiency when making the S-IV stage larger to accept 6 of the lower quality RL10A-3S engines.  The C-2 would still be able to carry the Moon lander to Low Orbit, but the failure of the Rl10B-3 effectively destroyed its payload reserves.

 

On the S-IVB stage:

At the time there was no "simple S-IVB" stage.   The S-IVB stage, initially envisioned by MSFC, would be a self-docking, auto refueling affair.  In orbit, the S-IVB would join several similar stages in series.   The combined train of S-IVB stages would burn one stage after the next to carry the  Apollo Lunar Lander Capsule to the Moon and allow it to land and return.     

There was no decision yet on what would become the J-2 Engine.   Aerojet was technically in the lead (winning 10 of 11 scoring points) with the more refined engine doing the required work but was under a strict "CRASH PROGRAM" for the USAF and could not devote the time needed to produce the LR87-LH2 for comparison to the Rocketdyne alternative.

The S-IVB stage at the time had an advanced Computer allowing autopilot and auto-docking.  The Saturn IU would also hold the "female" version of the inline docking port.   The Engine mount would include a Structural "male" docking port.  When connected Electrical and data lines would span across these docking ports.

On the sides of the S-IVB would be a parallel docking port to allow fuel to be added to both the LOX and S-LH2 tanks.  As you can imagine this was a very complex arrangement of pipes and structures that we were struggling to grasp at the time (it is doubtful to me if with 2020s technology we could EASILY do all of this!)  They were still using Slide-rules to do all the calculations *WOW*!

As a result of the decision to go to LOR instead of EOR/EOC, the Saturn S-IVB was dramatically simplified (basic structure and engine remained the same everything else was new) and the Inline Docking S-IVB as initially proposed?  It became the S-IVC (no, not the Eyes turned skyward S-IVC!)

As I said, I separated this to keep the rest of the document readable.   I hope this helps understand some of the WHY things went the way they did.

About the time of the Apollo MLV program (1967-1969) a NASA document (Houston not MSFC) re-issued a drawing of the C-2 era Direct Apollo rocket and labeled it Saturn C-8.   The document in question was part of a packet sent to the US Congress for information on alternative rockets to Saturn in the Post Lunar phase.    Then in Nova 3rd Generation (yes there were THREE NOVA Programs!) someone threw said "Saturn Direct" study in and again labeled it as Saturn C-8.  I can find no documents that Von Braun or MSFC actually submitted this idea.  This is all followed up by modern internet sloppy documentation and miss-quoting  by Astronautix doing another Great job of posting things without proper documentation and no real-world facts to stand on.... And then Astronautix quoting Wikipedia as a source when Wikipedia quotes Astronautix as a source... (it happens on many but not all of the Titan and Saturn Pages)

There are three reasons the re-submitted Apollo direct does not make sense:

1. Nova3G was supposed to be BIGGER than anything in the Saturn Structure of rockets could lift.   I GUESS if you surrounded the Direct Apollo Saturn with 6x AJ-260s you MIGHT get ALMOST enough payload to orbit....
2. The Mission had changed but the stages stay the same... Not conducive to big lift to either Low orbit or escape trajectories
3. Congress (and NASA!) wanted NEW technology... there was nothing NEW about Apollo Direct Ascent.  It used Saturn Avionics, Engines, and structural design just made larger ad-nauseam

 Point 3 is the biggest sticking point to the whole argument that Apollo Direct Ascent was EVER meant to fly.   ADA or renamed Saturn C-8 is the litmus test as to if a proposal is worthy of looking into or not for big Lunar or Interplanetary rockets.   Nothing else.
 

As an aside... when did Tinker toys go from all wood to all plastic?!

 

I guess I should read all the posts before Writing a Novel answer eh?

Impressed!  What parts and engines did you end up using?

It's all RL-10s there, the TWR was a problem with the landing stage however so I switched to the oldest RL-10 variant and reduced fuel a bit. Iirc, the report says that the engine would have been a derivative of it as well

[Pudgemountain]

To be fair if we don't count pure 1960s era, then the Saturn Launch System I made with refueling can send my prototype mars lander to 2.5x scale Mars and orbit without using the lander to orbit. So if you slap a S-IVB stage to it then you could use the S-IVB as the lander base and use it for a Direct Moon Mission no problem.

It uses 99% BDB parts with the exception of the SRBs which I wanna say are ShadowWorks but I forget.

So you don't need Nova to do a direct ascent mission.

[Pappystein]

5 minutes ago, Beccab said:

It's all RL-10s there, the TWR was a problem with the landing stage however so I switched to the oldest RL-10 variant and reduced fuel a bit. Iirc, the report says that the engine would have been a derivative of it as well

Likely the B3 (XLR-119) then.  

Also thanks for the link to the full document (Archived now)

 

7 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

@Pappystein Did you miss the part about them only wanting the landers or did you want to get the rage out of your system about C-8/Nova? 

Never going to get rid of the rage...    Internet makes things too easy to make things up some times.  And that is really my biggest problem.    I know I am not perfect (I almost exclusively write from memory instead of reading each and every document every time I write something.)  But at least I try to keep on the correct point.    As I already stated, didn't read the last page of posts and spent two hours trying to NOT sound like the Angry Armchair NASA Historian!

 

As an Asside, I think that is the most comprehensive review of the development of the S-IV stage I have done without getting into the technical minutia....   Might have to expand that into a new Historical article!

[Soviet_Velir]

Guys,hi
In which folder i can find bluedog.Delta.Fin part?It need for craftfile which i download

[Zorg]

2 hours ago, Soviet_Velir said:

Guys,hi
In which folder i can find bluedog.Delta.Fin part?It need for craftfile which i download

Its in the Thor folder.

19 hours ago, zakkpaz said:

I think I'm doing something wrong here, I keep geting a error message.

heres the .cfg i made

 

huh let me check on that later. We need official patches for all our radiators anyway.

[Pudgemountain]

Since it's the 4th of July where I'm at and with a recent discussion here I decided to do a Direct Ascent Moon Landing.

This is the first time I slapped a S-IVB stage onto the Saturn Launch System and it's payload is a Direct Ascent Apollo lander named Jefferson.

The rest will be in Spoilers so I wont take too much space.

Spoiler

We had enough fuel to orbit the Moon at 15km and just a little to star the Lunar Descent.

Jefferson has Landed.

In honor of the 4th, instead of the International Space Flag we were allowed to plant a Replica Betsy Kerman flag to honor this day.

Time to head home.

A shark in it's natural habitat.

This was really fun to do.

[zakkpaz]

33 minutes ago, Zorg said:

huh let me check on that later. We need official patches for all our radiators anyway.

I pretty much gave up i kept geting errors and i've only ever made patches by cut and paste.

 

i couldn't get the separate subtypes to have  different capabilities, i do have some of the other Radiators if you want them.

[Galileo chiu]

8 hours ago, Beccab said:

There ya go! "Direct flight study using Saturn C-5 for Apollo project", from february 1963 (6 months after the LOR decision, pics are inside the spoiler)

  Reveal hidden contents

Also since I had some free time, here's its recreation in KSP
 

that's the good stuff

[qwery123]

Despite Skylab being reworked in 1.10, it still does not have an IVA.

I mean that the wet workshops DO have an unique IVA, but the OWS and FRM has a black IVA and the EFB-ESM uses the PPD-10 IVA.

Edited July 5, 2022 by qwery123

[GoldForest]

22 minutes ago, qwery123 said:

Despite Skylab being reworked in 1.10, it still does not have an IVA.

I mean that the wet workshops DO have an unique IVA, but the OWS and FRM has a black IVA and the EFB-ESM uses the PPD-10 IVA.

Skylab OWS got an IVA. Back in 1.10.2.