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

[GoldForest]

15 minutes ago, Alpha512 said:

Ain't the tank abit too long for fat agena?

Possibly, but I'm not complaining. I got like 6,700 m/s out of it. 

Also, IIRC there were different lengths to a wide body Agena. One plan called for a short one and one plan called for a long one I think. Would have to recheck the documents, going off memory, though with a terrible memory, not really trust worthy lol.

Edited July 21, 2022 by GoldForest

[Rodger]

If anyone was having issues with KJR:N and the LRV, it’ll be worth testing with the latest dev version. If you had phantom forces when deploying, and this version fixes it, let me know! The RO build of KJR seems to not be compatible, so if you have issues, double check what one you have.

The CoM on the LM with rover attached should also be balanced with the CoT, when you put all 7 in-situ components in the cargo module, and use the new CoM switch on the cargo module set to Rover Counterweight. And yes, in the editor it will look wrong:

but trust me it works lol 

[Pappystein]

2 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Possibly, but I'm not complaining. I got like 6,700 m/s out of it. 

Also, IIRC there were different lengths to a wide body Agena. One plan called for a short one and one plan called for a long one I think. Would have to recheck the documents, going off memory, though with a terrible memory, not really trust worthy lol.

there was a 105" diameter Version and a 118" Diameter version.  The 105" was longer... that would be about... 1.70m or 1.75m KSP scale I *THINK* (2.667m IRL)

***Folow-up Edit***

The 105" I believe was meant for a new launcher or a potential Thor based launcher (it is just a little bigger than the Thor's 8ft diameter)   Sort of a replacement for Thorad?   Not much is mentioned in the Shuttle Agena documents I have other than it was quickly eliminated as it did not gain an appreciable cargo volume in the shuttle bay (the payload would be almost as constrained in length as an Ascent Agena derived Shuttle Agena.   Conversely the 118" version was significantly shorter as to provide a much larger length of payload capability in a shuttle bay.

In all the documents I have. WITH THE EXCEPTION of AGENA-C, I have never seen a document quote a different length for the 118" Agena Evo (the stage is titled "Evolutionary Agena" in every document... Agena Evo is just easier to say and NOT "BIG" or "FAT" since both of those were used by other companies on other products.)

Agena C was never built, and beyond preliminary design of the tank, never actually designed.   LSMC was trying to sell it instead of fix the problems with Agena A and B.    The problem with Agena A and B was one of space in the GCU... This was fixed with the Analog-Digital GCU on Agena D.   Agena C was a way for LSMC to get more volume in the GCU without an appreciable loss in performance.  In the Agena NRO documents I acquired from the NRO for public release website, I found two references to the Agena C... one was a memo on why it was such a bad idea to reward Lockheed with another contract when they were not meeting production goals **Even with alternative fuel loads** (my emphasis.)   Unsure what they meant... could be same tank with two different "fill levels" or it could be two different alternative fuels... or two completely different tanks (size and all.)   The only thing known is the Agena C was to be a greater diameter and shorter length than Agena B.    Agena C could have been 105"  or it could have been 118-120".   Just don't know with what I remember.    Said documents are so poorly reproduced that I get a headache just trying to read one page....   So I haven't re-read them in a while.

Also the 1974 Agena documents point out a 8" tank extension to allow for new fuel (MMH + HDA (AKA IRFNA-IV in Community Resources) .)   Also noteworthy is the change to a more modern Aluminum Alloy...

 

But back to Agena Evo, all the NASA documents on wide body Shuttle Agena from 1972 clearly state the 118" diameter version is the preferred option.      The 1974 documents throw the SOT drop tank Agena into the mix and that is the preferred option with a future growth to a mostly Different Wide body Agena.

 

 

Edited July 21, 2022 by Pappystein

[GoldForest]

13 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

there was a 105" diameter Version and a 118" Diameter version.  The 105" was longer... that would be about... 1.70m or 1.75m KSP scale I *THINK* (2.667m IRL)

 

Both versions would end up 1.875 wouldn't they? Unless Cobalt wants to add another custom diameter. 

[Pappystein]

Just now, GoldForest said:

Both versions would end up 1.875 wouldn't they? Unless Cobalt wants to add another custom diameter. 

Sorry just edited my post further     Yes it would be another custom diameter... or it could be Shrunk down to 1.5m.   I am not proposing it be made for KSP to be clear.   Just stating that is where the varying lengths come from for Agena Evo

[Rodger]

I think 118"/2.66m irl would be 1.66m ksp size? ngl, 1.5m agena would be based

[Pappystein]

Just now, Rodger said:

I think 118"/2.66m irl would be 1.66m ksp size? ngl, 1.5m agena would be based

Are you using a scale other than 0.64?

 

[Rodger]

That's with 0.625. Does BDB generally use .64?

[septemberWaves]

Agena was not 2.66 meters in diameter, it was 1.5 meters. The BDB scale is at least as close as it is possible to get to being correct to a 0.64x scaling factor while only using standard KSP sizes. EDIT: I had not seen the earlier discussion about wide-body Agena.

Edited July 21, 2022 by septemberWaves

[shakuvendell]

13 hours ago, pTrevTrevs said:

I gotcha; it's still three minutes to midnight where I live:

 

Older screenshots of mine, but they check out.

Pretty sure it was still the 20th at the Kennedy Space center at the time, too. It works for me!

[Invaderchaos]

35 minutes ago, septemberWaves said:

Agena was not 2.66 meters in diameter, it was 1.5 meters. The BDB scale is at least as close as it is possible to get to being correct to a 0.64x scaling factor while only using standard KSP sizes. EDIT: I had not seen the earlier discussion about wide-body Agena.

58 minutes ago, Rodger said:

That's with 0.625. Does BDB generally use .64?

1 hour ago, Rodger said:

I think 118"/2.66m irl would be 1.66m ksp size? ngl, 1.5m agena would be based

BDB uses a 62.5% scaling factor. Regarding wide-body Agena, there were a few proposals, so if I were to get to it eventually I’d probably focus on a 1.875m Agena.

1 hour ago, Pappystein said:

Sorry just edited my post further     Yes it would be another custom diameter... or it could be Shrunk down to 1.5m.   I am not proposing it be made for KSP to be clear.   Just stating that is where the varying lengths come from for Agena Evo

1 hour ago, GoldForest said:

Both versions would end up 1.875 wouldn't they? Unless Cobalt wants to add another custom diameter. 

If I read the document correctly, there was a couple versions it proposed. One would be a little over 1.5m (would’ve been scaled down to 1.5m) and a slightly thicker one would be a little under 1.875m (would be rounded up to 1.875m. To me, it wouldn’t be worth it to cover both versions, and it seems like to me that making it 1.875m would make it much more useful (in terms of combining it with other parts and launch vehicles) than a 1.5m Agena would be.

I should probably state that I am definitely interested in making a wide Agena. However I do have a lot on my plate and I don’t think it’ll happen at the current moment (maybe).

Edited July 21, 2022 by Invaderchaos

[Shlyopa]

2 hours ago, Invaderchaos said:

BDB uses a 62.5% scaling factor. Regarding wide-body Agena, there were a few proposals, so if I were to get to it eventually I’d probably focus on a 1.875m Agena.

If I read the document correctly, there was a couple versions it proposed. One would be a little over 1.5m (would’ve been scaled down to 1.5m) and a slightly thicker one would be a little under 1.875m (would be rounded up to 1.875m. To me, it wouldn’t be worth it to cover both versions, and it seems like to me that making it 1.875m would make it much more useful (in terms of combining it with other parts and launch vehicles) than a 1.5m Agena would be.

I should probably state that I am definitely interested in making a wide Agena. However I do have a lot on my plate and I don’t think it’ll happen at the current moment (maybe).

Can you make thicc agena and other unflown stages as addition to main BDB, to reduce part count? 

[Zorg]

4 hours ago, Pappystein said:

Are you using a scale other than 0.64?

 

0.625 is the standard scaling factor and thats what we use (with rounding where appropriate)

[Invaderchaos]

1 hour ago, Shlyopa said:

Can you make thicc agena and other unflown stages as addition to main BDB, to reduce part count? 

I’m pretty sure BDB is well past the point of limiting part count lol. If you have an issue with the number of parts in BDB feel free to delete any part folders you don’t want, as our folders are structured to be prune-able.

Edited July 21, 2022 by Invaderchaos

[MOARdV]

1 hour ago, Invaderchaos said:

our folders are structured to be prune-able.

I've always wanted to build Prune-Able without kitbashing.  

[pTrevTrevs]

1977 Interlude: Can't Think of a Witty Title This Time:

 

July, 1977: The crew of Skylab 6 performs the longest of a series of EVAs meant to service the orbiting station. The activities outside are recorded by the camera system installed on Skylab 5:

Quote

One of the primary goals of today's EVA is to reach the disconnected ATM solar array and determine whether it can be repaired. After over an hour of clambering over the ATM instrument dish and struggling to find a stable handhold on the rim, the crew peers over the edge to find that the electrical connection has been entirely burned through. It appears a tear in the insulation allowed the cables to reach unacceptable temperatures and melt in two. The other three ATM panels and the remaining workshop SAW are also inspected for similar faults, though none are found. It appears the ATM panel is busted for good.

During the flight the crew also performs an exterior inspection of the new docking module. Visible in this photo is the optics and radar package used for guiding autonomous spacecraft, such as the AARDV freighter docked to the nadir port.

 

 

June - September, 1977: At Edwards Air Force Base, Space Shuttle Enterprise performs a series of free flights meant to determine the orbiter's flight characteristics on final approach. Only one photo here because it's not really BDB-related. See more in the Shuttle Adventures thread in Mission Reports:

Quote

 

August, 1977: Skylab 6 completes its six-week mission and departs the station, splashing down in the western Pacific ocean. Skylab 7 is scheduled to take its place aboard the outpost in December:

Quote

 

August - September, 1977: The twin Voyager space probes launch aboard the final two Titan IIIE boosters, set to continue the exploration of Jupiter and Saturn begun by the Pioneer 10 and 11 space probes. As a tertiary goal Voyager 2 is launched into a trajectory which will enable it to proceed on to Uranus and Neptune, should Voyager 1 accomplish all its objectives at Jupiter and Saturn. 

Quote

Voyager 2 launches first due to its unique mission profile, and will follow a slower trajectory which will take it to all four major outer planets by the year 1990.

Voyager 1 follows one week later, placed on a faster trajectory which will allow it to overtake Voyager 2 and arrive at Jupiter first, in early 1979. Following this profile, Voyager 1 becomes the fastest man-made object in history as its Centaur upper stage propels it out of Earth's gravitational sphere at blistering speeds.

 

[GoldForest]

11 hours ago, Invaderchaos said:

BDB uses a 62.5% scaling factor. Regarding wide-body Agena, there were a few proposals, so if I were to get to it eventually I’d probably focus on a 1.875m Agena.

If I read the document correctly, there was a couple versions it proposed. One would be a little over 1.5m (would’ve been scaled down to 1.5m) and a slightly thicker one would be a little under 1.875m (would be rounded up to 1.875m. To me, it wouldn’t be worth it to cover both versions, and it seems like to me that making it 1.875m would make it much more useful (in terms of combining it with other parts and launch vehicles) than a 1.5m Agena would be.

I should probably state that I am definitely interested in making a wide Agena. However I do have a lot on my plate and I don’t think it’ll happen at the current moment (maybe).

A 1.5m Agena would be good as well. A new upper stage for Delta/Thor, or a 2nd upper stage for Titan I. 

[Rodger]

23 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

A 1.5m Agena would be good as well. A new upper stage for Delta/Thor, or a 2nd upper stage for Titan I. 

Or to put on top of a peacekeeper lol

[Rudolf Meier]

On 7/19/2022 at 4:16 AM, Rodger said:

I've been able to use KJR:Next without phantom forces:

KJR Next and Infernal Robotics Next are built in a way that should eliminate all phantom forces. (as far as I know you have them with all other KJR versions and with stock robotics if you save/load flights and use time warp)

[Pappystein]

8 hours ago, Rodger said:

Or to put on top of a peacekeeper lol

HA!  I already put standard Agena on top of MX   It is a great LKO (well LEO now that I am using KSRSS 2.5) small sat launcher with a low cost.

BUT in all seriousness, the MX especially but even Castor 120 would have a hard time lifting a useful payload with a 1.5m Agena Evo.    I find myself equipping boosters to the first stage when launching an Ascent Agena Bus satellite.   MX has a high Acceleration for the first half of the 1st stage but the 2nd half is much lower by comparison and it is easier to get to less than 1:1 TWR with Agena on top.

[davidy12]

Isn't there a fix for KJR (Joint Reinforcement)? Some community patch?

I just don't know how to properly strut everything together.

[Rodger]

There's a version of KJR that works for robotics linked above, KJR:Next. If that still causes issues, this patch should fix it (put anywhere in gamedata, only works with KJR:Next, not other versions of KJR)

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/985204794836811826/999996064348250162/KJR_LRV.cfg

[Pudgemountain]

Looks like the cockpit windows on the Gemini Pod make great eyes for a face.

[biohazard15]

On 7/21/2022 at 10:30 PM, Invaderchaos said:

I should probably state that I am definitely interested in making a wide Agena. However I do have a lot on my plate and I don’t think it’ll happen at the current moment (maybe).

Note that existing 1.875m interstages may need a "longer" update to accomodate Agena Evo. Notably , the Centaur trusses for wide fairings - in my "sketches" with Restock parts, they weren't tall enough to accomodate 8096B and 8096C.

WRT 1.5m Agena - IMO, this isn't necessary, since we can reuse HOSS parts. Wouldn't say "no" to a B9 stretch for 1.875m one, though - while real project was limited by Shuttle bay, BDB is not.

[Pappystein]

16 minutes ago, biohazard15 said:

Note that existing 1.875m interstages may need a "longer" update to accomodate Agena Evo. Notably , the Centaur trusses for wide fairings - in my "sketches" with Restock parts, they weren't tall enough to accomodate 8096B and 8096C.

WRT 1.5m Agena - IMO, this isn't necessary, since we can reuse HOSS parts. Wouldn't say "no" to a B9 stretch for 1.875m one, though - while real project was limited by Shuttle bay, BDB is not.

8096C (1st edition) and 8096L (which is closer to the BDB 8096C) were from time to time depicted with a side folding bell.   This was A) not always the case and B) of dubious seal capability.  

8096C in most documents is the highest thrust version of the 8096... except 2 prominent documents... where 8096L is not mentioned and the 8096C designated rocket is basically the 8096L.    Since these were just conceptual and not actually ordered... IDK who is right...   We got what we got so that is what we got

**Side note, Not even Wikipedia's English entry for the Bell XLR-81 family mentions the 8096C!**

Incidentally somewhere in my agena Documentation, I have a 150:1 and a 200:1 bell drawing for the 8096 as well!   IIRC the BDB one is 100:1?

Also I noticed this was not on the Agena Evo drawings but most shuttle Agena drawings for the standard Agena D derived Shuttle Agena show the RCS system spaced off the aft rack by 10-20 inches.  That gives a greater thrust(mass) movement arm and thus more rotational torque about all 3 main axis.  

Edited July 22, 2022 by Pappystein