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

[Lil_Bread402]

On 8/31/2022 at 8:10 AM, CobaltWolf said:

as well as all of the Apollo RCS blocks

Lovley. Makes me think of the boilerplate RCS bits

On 8/24/2022 at 4:12 AM, GoldForest said:

More C-8 love.

easily one of the best rockets

[Alpha512]

8 hours ago, Jcking said:

No, that is an unnecessary complication for liquid propellant vehicles and negates one of the advantages of them. Only on the pad or test stand are they fueled (solids on the other hand are cast in the factory).

I particularly mean hydrazine-fueled spacecraft, as at least satellites and space probes (but i guess crewed spacecraft too) are fueled in the payload processing centre before being incapsulated and integrated with the LV, not right on the pad (I'm like 101% sure of this but if u got proof of the contrary, would be happy to see)

[Pappystein]

4 hours ago, AstroMods said:

Lovley. Makes me think of the boilerplate RCS bits

easily one of the best rockets

A paper study to prove that Direct to Moon is a ***VERY BAD IDEA*** is "one of the best rockets"   

Earliest moon landing with Saturn Direct is 1974 (that is right out of several ABMA documents!) 
ABMA rated it's % chance of failure at over 60%.       Then again they rated the C-II and C-III rocket combo at ~30% failure....  Thus LOR, and Saturn V was rated less than 10% chance of failure.  And including Apollo 13, Saturn V was almost exactly that! (of course book makers had much different numbers....  But we are not talking about gambling here.)

Well you are entitled to your opinion    But an large number of us disagree.

Edited September 2, 2022 by Pappystein

[pTrevTrevs]

13 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

A paper study to prove that Direct to Moon is a ***VERY BAD IDEA*** is "one of the best rockets"   

Earliest moon landing with Saturn Direct is 1974 (that is right out of several ABMA documents!) 
ABMA rated it's % chance of failure at over 60%.       Then again they rated the C-II and C-III rocket combo at ~30% failure....  Thus LOR, and Saturn V was rated less than 10% chance of failure.  And including Apollo 13, Saturn V was almost exactly that! (of course book makers had much different numbers....  But we are not talking about gambling here.)

Well you are entitled to your opinion    But an large number of us disagree.

Direct Ascent is for people who are afraid of rendezvous and docking (sinners).

[Pappystein]

4 hours ago, Alpha512 said:

I particularly mean hydrazine-fueled spacecraft, as at least satellites and space probes (but i guess crewed spacecraft too) are fueled in the payload processing centre before being incapsulated and integrated with the LV, not right on the pad (I'm like 101% sure of this but if u got proof of the contrary, would be happy to see)

Totally LV/Payload dependent.    EG Atlas and Thor Agena were filled on the stand not in pre-assembly.assembly.  Not 100% certain for Titan but I think that is in the 24B shroud it is filled during assembly and exposed was filled on the pad.

A big modern one... Space Shuttle Hypergolic fuels were in VAB after full stack assembly (so right before roll out) and LH2/LOX of course on the stand.

Something to realize with the Hypergolic fuels... and why they are typically not filled on the stand like Hydrolox and Kerolox.    They are NASTY chemicals that if they touch your skin could immediately cause the loss of body parts (depending on what Hypergolic chemical we are talking about)  IIRC (I would have to re check in Ignition!) Aerozine from AZ50 would INSTANTLY absorb through skin and rot the area it touched over a few days.   

 

Edited September 2, 2022 by Pappystein

[Jcking]

2 hours ago, pTrevTrevs said:

Direct Ascent is for people who are afraid of rendezvous and docking (sinners).

Direct flight has other advantages: One of the things that hurt Orion and Altiar bad is the abort at anytime requirement which needed significant margins for plane changes to meet up with the Orion for the polar sites that were desired. Going direct flight eliminates this concern, but the breakpoints in which this pushes LOR to being close to parity with Direct Flight in terms of mass I do not know.

Edited September 2, 2022 by Jcking

[Beccab]

12 minutes ago, Jcking said:

Direct flight has other advantages: One of the things that hurt Orion and Altiar bad is the abort at anytime requirement which needed significant margins for plane changes to meet up with the Orion for the polar sites that were desired. Going direct flight eliminates this concern, but the breakpoints in which this pushes LOR to being close to parity with Direct Flight I do not know.

To get the best of both worlds, EOR with direct ascent from the moon could work

Like ELA, only without a capsule position that makes sense this time

Edited September 2, 2022 by Beccab

[GoldForest]

LDC makes for a good Ares I upper stage. 

Also, controversial thought... Ares I is just a boosterless stretched Delta III.

[SpaceFace545]

4 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Also, controversial thought... Ares I is just a boosterless stretched Delta III.

It really couldn’t be further from that 

[Rodger]

On 9/1/2022 at 4:43 AM, DaOPCreeper said:

So any updates on adding fuel cross feed for the Saturn decouples? 

On 9/1/2022 at 11:02 PM, OrbitalManeuvers said:

I believe the original ask was to be able to fully fuel a Saturn V on an MLP pad, which is still not quite possible. The SII interstage blocks the SII tank, the SIV interstage blocks the SIV tank, and then it gets a little trickier to test. The SLAM/BLAM/TYMAAM blocks the LM descent stage, The LM separator should be fine to get to the LM ascent stage, and I'm not sure about the CSM's engine mount, but the CSM attached directly to a launch pad via the mount node where the SLAM connects, does work.

I've just added a new optional patch which adds crossfeed to interstages and some of the decoupling adapters.

[GoldForest]

2 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

It really couldn’t be further from that 

I was just joking around, but they do have some similiarities.
Both have upper stages that are larger in diameter than their 1st/core stage.
Both have long skinny 1st/core stages. 
Both have hydrogen powered upper stages

The only real difference is Ares I has an SRB and not a liquid engine, and the diameters are different. 

[DaOPCreeper]

1 hour ago, Rodger said:

I've just added a new optional patch which adds crossfeed to interstages and some of the decoupling adapters.

thanks, is it available for download, or do i have to wait for the next update

 

Edited September 2, 2022 by DaOPCreeper

[Rodger]

27 minutes ago, DaOPCreeper said:

thanks, is it available for download, or do i have to wait for the next update

 

If you want you can copy the text from the linked config, and put it in a new cfg file in your GameData. (though that config doesn't touch the S1C ring decoupler's crossfeed since that's changed in the main config, though you could update that yourself too)

[CobaltWolf]

45 minutes ago, Rodger said:

If you want you can copy the text from the linked config, and put it in a new cfg file in your GameData. (though that config doesn't touch the S1C ring decoupler's crossfeed since that's changed in the main config, though you could update that yourself too)

Isn't it something we could just add to the parts and keep it disabled by default?

[DaOPCreeper]

47 minutes ago, Rodger said:

If you want you can copy the text from the linked config, and put it in a new cfg file in your GameData. (though that config doesn't touch the S1C ring decoupler's crossfeed since that's changed in the main config, though you could update that yourself too)

i don't trust myself to do it right lol,  I'll just wait for the next update (or whatever update cross feed is added in)

[Rodger]

4 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Isn't it something we could just add to the parts and keep it disabled by default?

If you reckon it's fine, then yeah I'll put them in the part cfgs instead.

@DaOPCreeperfair enough haha, next update will have it all.

[RocketBoy1641]

15 hours ago, Pappystein said:

A paper study to prove that Direct to Moon is a ***VERY BAD IDEA*** is "one of the best rockets"   

Earliest moon landing with Saturn Direct is 1974 (that is right out of several ABMA documents!) 
ABMA rated it's % chance of failure at over 60%.       Then again they rated the C-II and C-III rocket combo at ~30% failure....  Thus LOR, and Saturn V was rated less than 10% chance of failure.  And including Apollo 13, Saturn V was almost exactly that! (of course book makers had much different numbers....  But we are not talking about gambling here.)

Well you are entitled to your opinion    But an large number of us disagree.

The thing with the % chance is a great example of the genious of Sam Clemons (Mark Twain).  More recient studies have even put historic Apollo in single digits on chance of success.

[OrbitalManeuvers]

Would some kind soul educate me on the Titan SRB abort mode usage?

[Blufor878]

I was inspired by @Jasseji to show this when he created a Falcon 9 Orion hybrid

I apologize to the BDB crew and damonvv for doing this. But someone had to. Also I'm from Florida, so I can't help it.

Edit:  I've posted it on KerbalX here if you guys want to mess with it: https://kerbalx.com/ManateeAerospace/Apollo-Falcon-9
Shouldn't be that hard to put together yourselves but I wanted to post it in case.

Edited September 2, 2022 by Blufor878

[Pappystein]

4 hours ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:

Would some kind soul educate me on the Titan SRB abort mode usage?

IRL Abort on any SRM is blowing the top or side of the case...

In the specific case of the UA-120x Generation 1 SRMs (UA-1205 and the prototype but never flown UA-1207)  The large circular apertures on the nose would open up, the case had plugs in those locations on the actual pressure vessel that would be cut away by Detonation cord.  Then the thrust going up would be ABOUT equal to the thrust going down... basically making the UA-1205/7 Gen 1 a giant air brake.

Generation 2 UA-1205 did not have the "man rating" abort mode and instead had Detonation cord on the outside of the stack (opposite of the central rocket stack)

Generation 3 UA-1205, UA-1206 (5.5) and UA-1207 also were detonation cord on the side of the SRM (neither the Gen 2 nor the Gen three flew with the blow out aperture.)   FWIW in terms of look Generation 1 and 2 UA-120x had giant Aerozine tanks... Gen 3 (the most flown variant) had smaller narrower tanks.

****

IN GAME:

In editor you can go to the abort option of the Action Groups,  Go to Abort,  click on the UA-120x SRM engine in the main scene then back to the action group tab and click Shutdown engine.   Then click on both the Nose cone, bottom separation motor and decoupler and Activate Engine / Decouple as needed.   Viola   Aborted SRMs

 

[OrbitalManeuvers]

13 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

Then click on both the Nose cone, bottom separation motor and decoupler and Activate Engine / Decouple as needed. 

Thank you for the info! There's an update on github btw that makes these guys have abort mode hooked up by default. Anyway, this was the part I was wondering about, because I could kinda tell they were trying to cancel out the thrust ... ? ... I thought? So just wasn't sure about jettison, but that makes sense.

[Pudgemountain]

I decided to do my own take on Artemis 1 while waiting for Saturday's launch using Benjee10's Orion.

Launch Vehicle SLSS aka Saturn Launch System Stout.

I'm gonna post the rest in Spoilers since I have alot of pictures up this post already lol.

Spoiler

After 3 days she finally arrived to the Moon and achieved 15km orbit.

I did not have any probes to drop so I just orbited it for 2 weeks.

The next pics are in a different filter due to how Dark the Vintage filter is.

Rough but safe.

Not gonna lie I was playing "Rooster" by Alice in Chains during launch, don't know why lol.

[CobaltWolf]

[AlphaMensae]

10 hours ago, Rodger said:

If you reckon it's fine, then yeah I'll put them in the part cfgs instead.

@DaOPCreeperfair enough haha, next update will have it all.

It's ModuleToggleCrossFeed, and can be set to false as the default, which you want for decouplers.  Then crossfeed can be temporarily enabled so upper stages can be reached by the fuel generator in the MLP launch bases/stands.

[Rodger]

10 minutes ago, AlphaMensae said:

It's ModuleToggleCrossFeed, and can be set to false as the default, which you want for decouplers.  Then crossfeed can be temporarily enabled so upper stages can be reached by the fuel generator in the MLP launch bases/stands.

Yep, it's pushed to dev now if people want it. Added the module to 31 part configs