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

[Zorg]

19 minutes ago, Viper2 said:

is there a craft file for the new voyager, or atleast some detailed pics were are which experiment is located ?

No official craft files since things are changing a lot. A pre-release build guide will appear in Friznits wiki issues section soon.

In the meantime:

The baseline mission would only have the original Planetary scan platform for orbital science with the mesh type high gain dish.

Upgraded missions would use the fold under XL dish, and the upgraded scan platform.

Extra instruments go here:

There are 3x MM impact experiments so just place them wherever you like roughly evenly spaced

Lander:

Better guides will come but hope this helps for now.

Edited October 28, 2022 by Zorg

[OrbitalManeuvers]

So we all know that living on the bleeding edge of the dev branch is caveat emptor territory, and you can't be too attached to your saves or your missions. It's a lifestyle choice

That said, I'm taking this opportunity to try and learn something, and maybe someone else could benefit from this too? People who make cinematics likely deal with this all the time...

Today I want to replace the orbiter/lander pairs that I have in Mars orbit from the actual flown mission I did last night. I plan to do this by cheating the new craft to match the positions of the existing craft. I can do this in a new save or the same save, doesn't really matter. But, as you can see below I'm missing a few orbital parameters that I don't know how to express in the cheat dialog. 

Any help would be most appreciated!

Spoiler

The yellow box shows MJ and KER orbital params for the craft whose orbit I'd like to match (also highlighted in yellow). I'm close, but clearly the 3 params I'm missing will help "rotate" the orbit around to the right position. The blue box shows the values I used to obtain the results shown on the right with my cheated craft active. Anyone know how to express LAN, or what the others inputs need?

 

 

[MajorLeaugeRocketScience]

21 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

I can confirm there is not, I am definitely waiting to tackle that.

(And before someone says something, I don't think I've ever lied about saying something isn't in the works)

S-ID I'm pretty sure you did, that was a fun stream though.

Does this confirm you're going to at least do the Marshall MEM? If you all are looking for another one to do as well, I always thought the biconic/aerodynamic design was awesome. It was cancelled after Mariner IV atmospheric data was received, but considering the Lockheed MADV concept is essentially the exact same I think it still could have worked

[Beccab]

3 minutes ago, MajorLeaugeRocketScience said:

It was cancelled after Mariner IV atmospheric data was received, but considering the Lockheed MADV concept is essentially the exact same I think it still could have worked

The problem is the fuel, not the concept itself. The lifting body MEM wanted to remove a lot of speed, much more than the MADV, from just the atmosphere, which means that in reality it would either have crashed or have run out of fuel before returning to LMO with the design it had. There's a reason the MADV is absolutely massive

[CobaltWolf]

21 hours ago, G'th said:

TMK these types of stages just ran off the reactors in the engines. But that could also have just been me misunderstanding.

Coming back to this - something I didn't clarify, the axial S-IVC docking ports aren't for nuclear tugs. Barely even on my mind, to be honest. The S-IVC is designed for daisy chaining normal chemical stages together, so a way of generating EC for the radiators to prevent boiloff will still be necessary.

 

16 hours ago, rnyboy said:

Hi CobaltWolf...  This is a great mod and I can't even remember when I started using it.

Actually, in my old v1.11.3, I made a small collapsible rover using two small hinges that connected three small panels.  The first and last panel had the standard collapsible lunar rover wheels attached and the hinges folded everything down to pretty much the size of a small panel.   Because there was no "same vessel interaction" I could then use the small long hinge and a small decoupler attached to the bottom of the middle panel of the rover to move the packed rover out past the side of the descent stage.  After decoupling the collapsed wheels would just clear the landing legs and when extending the wheels the rover would essentially push its back end off the hinge/decoupler and freely ride down the landing legs to stop just a bit away from the LM ready for the two kerbals to use.    I was quite proud that it actually worked out.  Internally it fit pretty well, at least you couldn't see anything from the outside when packed except for a tiny bit of exposed hinge pin sticking out at the bottom of the LM descent stage side.   That was kind of nice because I didn't have to assign the extraction phase to an action group.

There's actually a real LRV in the mod as of v1.11, which released this past weekend. So no more need to kitbash the rover

 

18 minutes ago, MajorLeaugeRocketScience said:

S-ID I'm pretty sure you did, that was a fun stream though.

Does this confirm you're going to at least do the Marshall MEM? If you all are looking for another one to do as well, I always thought the biconic/aerodynamic design was awesome. It was cancelled after Mariner IV atmospheric data was received, but considering the Lockheed MADV concept is essentially the exact same I think it still could have worked

Oh, I might've messed around a bit with the S-1D. But in all seriousness, no there's no MEM under development.

Does it confirm we're going to make one? Also no, I really can't say at this point. But I know long term we probably want something capable of Mars/Duna landings. But as I said, it's probably not worth attempting to do now with the limited time we have before work on BDB2 will need to begin, and that will likely put off new content for literal years.

[GoldForest]

13 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Coming back to this - something I didn't clarify, the axial S-IVC docking ports aren't for nuclear tugs. Barely even on my mind, to be honest. The S-IVC is designed for daisy chaining normal chemical stages together, so a way of generating EC for the radiators to prevent boiloff will still be necessary.

 

There's actually a real LRV in the mod as of v1.11, which released this past weekend. So no more need to kitbash the rover

 

Oh, I might've messed around a bit with the S-1D. But in all seriousness, no there's no MEM under development.

Does it confirm we're going to make one? Also no, I really can't say at this point. But I know long term we probably want something capable of Mars/Duna landings. But as I said, it's probably not worth attempting to do now with the limited time we have before work on BDB2 will need to begin, and that will likely put off new content for literal years.

You have 4 months.  plenty of time.

[Rodger]

56 minutes ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:

So we all know that living on the bleeding edge of the dev branch is caveat emptor territory, and you can't be too attached to your saves or your missions. It's a lifestyle choice

That said, I'm taking this opportunity to try and learn something, and maybe someone else could benefit from this too? People who make cinematics likely deal with this all the time...

Today I want to replace the orbiter/lander pairs that I have in Mars orbit from the actual flown mission I did last night. I plan to do this by cheating the new craft to match the positions of the existing craft. I can do this in a new save or the same save, doesn't really matter. But, as you can see below I'm missing a few orbital parameters that I don't know how to express in the cheat dialog. 

Any help would be most appreciated!

  Hide contents

The yellow box shows MJ and KER orbital params for the craft whose orbit I'd like to match (also highlighted in yellow). I'm close, but clearly the 3 params I'm missing will help "rotate" the orbit around to the right position. The blue box shows the values I used to obtain the results shown on the right with my cheated craft active. Anyone know how to express LAN, or what the others inputs need?

 

 

I just use the 'craft rendezvous' option in the stock 'set orbit' menu, instead of inputting all the numbers.

[CobaltWolf]

31 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

You have 4 months.  plenty of time.

I have to get married and move in that time

if anyone wants to help with those expenses, check the first post of the thread

[GoldForest]

2 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

I have to get married and move in that time

if anyone wants to help with those expenses, check the first post of the thread

Work through your wedding. I'm sure your fiance will understand. /jk 

[Zorg]

1 hour ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:

So we all know that living on the bleeding edge of the dev branch is caveat emptor territory, and you can't be too attached to your saves or your missions. It's a lifestyle choice

That said, I'm taking this opportunity to try and learn something, and maybe someone else could benefit from this too? People who make cinematics likely deal with this all the time...

Today I want to replace the orbiter/lander pairs that I have in Mars orbit from the actual flown mission I did last night. I plan to do this by cheating the new craft to match the positions of the existing craft. I can do this in a new save or the same save, doesn't really matter. But, as you can see below I'm missing a few orbital parameters that I don't know how to express in the cheat dialog. 

Any help would be most appreciated!

  Hide contents

The yellow box shows MJ and KER orbital params for the craft whose orbit I'd like to match (also highlighted in yellow). I'm close, but clearly the 3 params I'm missing will help "rotate" the orbit around to the right position. The blue box shows the values I used to obtain the results shown on the right with my cheated craft active. Anyone know how to express LAN, or what the others inputs need?

 

 

instead of setting orbit to a body, just set to the target craft and cheat rendezvous to a perfect match.

[OrbitalManeuvers]

30 minutes ago, Rodger said:

I just use the 'craft rendezvous' option in the stock 'set orbit' menu, instead of inputting all the numbers.

Right, this will work as long as I can load the same save after updating 

[Zorg]

16 minutes ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:

Right, this will work as long as I can load the same save after updating 

ah I thought the craft was non functional rather than not loading.  If you pop the longitude of the ascension node into LAN, that should be enough I think? MNA is your position along that orbit. Dunno what OBT is.

[billbobjebkirk]

9 hours ago, Zorg said:

Some of the names and tags werent correct in the initial commit. Voyager or "Nomad" should bring up everything related now.

Nomad? This thing's not gonna come back and take over the Enterprise, is it?

[Zorg]

12 minutes ago, billbobjebkirk said:

Nomad? This thing's not gonna come back and take over the Enterprise, is it?

Idk. maybe

[Pudgemountain]

Not a Voyager Lander(don't have the tree or budget for it) But I successfully landed Debussy 5 3 on the Mun.

Since I don't have all the parts for a Titan, I had to do creative liberty on a direct launch.

Another night launch due to the alignment of the Mun.

Still a Juno Guidance Unit, modified with landing equipment and a engine.

We have touched down....in a angle.

Bill miscalculated where the camera should point so the generators and comm array are in the shot.

[OrbitalManeuvers]

Welp, decided to just complete the mission with the hardware I have in orbit, then I'll update and redo the mission with lessons learned!

Landing, and landing video:

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

[DeadJohn]

On 10/27/2022 at 12:58 PM, CobaltWolf said:

On 10/27/2022 at 12:39 PM, GoldForest said:

Wait, so is it 3 docking ports that will all dock at once or 1 docking port with 3 visual docking ports? 

Two separate parts, 4 when actually built. First is the structural part, with 3 nodes and length switches. Then the docking ports are placed in the slots. I don't know if that works as well in practice as it does in theory, but we'll have to see.

It might (or might not, I'm not the modder here) be easier to do it as a single part, similar to the linear docking ports from Near Future.

[bigyihsuan]

On 10/27/2022 at 12:58 PM, CobaltWolf said:

Two separate parts, 4 when actually built. First is the structural part, with 3 nodes and length switches. Then the docking ports are placed in the slots. I don't know if that works as well in practice as it does in theory, but we'll have to see.

33 minutes ago, DeadJohn said:

It might (or might not, I'm not the modder here) be easier to do it as a single part, similar to the linear docking ports from Near Future.

1 part will help with keeping part counts down, but multiple docking ports will help with stability, especially with parts this large.

[DeadJohn]

7 hours ago, bigyihsuan said:

1 part will help with keeping part counts down, but multiple docking ports will help with stability, especially with parts this large.

One larger port can be much more stable than multiple smaller ports. With round ports, 1x 2.5m port is less prone to docking glitches and kraken attacks than 3x 1.25m ports.

A long, thin linear docking port might be immensely strong. It depends on whether the longest dimension or the narrowest dimension is more of a factor when docking ports aren't round. I don't know the answer but maybe this NFC part can serve as an example for what BDB needs: https://github.com/post-kerbin-mining-corporation/NearFutureConstruction/blob/master/GameData/NearFutureConstruction/Parts/Docking/docking-truss/docking-linear-1.cfg

Edited October 29, 2022 by DeadJohn

[zw_45]

@ZorgFound a small issue, the part name for mars lander HGA seems to be duplicated

name = bluedog_voyagerMarsLander_HGAbluedog_voyagerMarsLander_HGA

[Rodger]

1 hour ago, zw_45 said:

@ZorgFound a small issue, the part name for mars lander HGA seems to be duplicated

name = bluedog_voyagerMarsLander_HGAbluedog_voyagerMarsLander_HGA

Fixing this will break craft files, so just a heads up if anyone has a lander in flight they will be deleted. 

6 hours ago, DeadJohn said:

One larger port can be much more stable than multiple smaller ports. With round ports, 1x 2.5m port is less prone to docking glitches and kraken attacks than 3x 1.25m ports.

A long, thin linear docking port might be immensely strong. It depends on whether the longest dimension or the narrowest dimension is more of a factor when docking ports aren't round. I don't know the answer but maybe this NFC part can serve as an example for what BDB needs: https://github.com/post-kerbin-mining-corporation/NearFutureConstruction/blob/master/GameData/NearFutureConstruction/Parts/Docking/docking-truss/docking-linear-1.cfg

Ksp doesn’t care what shape the port is, a rectangular one is identical to a round one as far as it’s concerned. Node size is the main factor here

[strangespinosaurus]

On 10/22/2022 at 1:49 AM, GoldForest said:

Well for 1:
Those errors are mostly for Artemis Construction Kit and not BDB.

2: Looks like you're missing Photon Corp

3: You can delete the ICPS folder inside the Benjee_Orion folder if you have BDB already installed to get rid of the dupe error

4: Make sure you have the latest download for all your mods involved. BDB, Artemis Construction Kit, Photoncorp, etc.

yo thank you

[CobaltWolf]

12 hours ago, Rodger said:

Ksp doesn’t care what shape the port is, a rectangular one is identical to a round one as far as it’s concerned. Node size is the main factor here

And node size is defined by the config, not the model. So I could make it equivalent to docking 3x of the Senior docking port.

[Pudgemountain]

Unfortunately the Koviets have beaten us to the first Multi Crewed launch, A Spacewalk and the first probe to and impact Minmus. However we currently hold the record for longest stay in orbit 1 week and we got the first soft landing on Minmus and had it televised.

First Mission: Cake 7 a Mercury one manned laboratory with enough supplies for 8 days and Bob. Launched on a Titan II.

Spoiler

I have fully unlocked the Titan II UwU.

As an extra precaution we used Nimbus Tracking Solar Panels just incase the fuel cell failed.

Unlike the Koviet's spacewalk Bob was untethered, atleast Bob's suit did not inflate.

The lab is pretty comfortable though where's the toilet?

Really Bob.....Really?

Second Mission: Softee which is just a Debussy lander just meant for Minmus. Launched on a Titan something.

Spoiler

I may have went overboard here. Oh well.

Hooray Bill placed the camera in a proper poition!

Artist rendition of Softee 1 on the Greater Flats of Minmus.

Strange thing was we "Borrowed" some readings from the Koviet probe and they saw what looked like dust on Minmus, they think it could've been from parts of their rocket impacting before the probe arrived. But due to the footage and readings from Softee it might actually be like a mist or fog of ice. Maybe Minmus has som fore of weather or geysers, we might have to do more exploration in the future.

[KeaKaka]

Voyager Mars 2: Return of the Marsbug!

Edited October 29, 2022 by KeaKaka