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

[shakuvendell]

1 hour ago, Rutabaga22 said:

Isn't MORL supposed to be gemini? I'm confused

You might be thinking of MOL, without the "R".

[Rutabaga22]

6 minutes ago, shakuvendell said:

You might be thinking of MOL, without the "R".

I've seen tuff about MORL being with gemini. I was probably wrong, I haven't done much research into this.

[CobaltWolf]

Just now, Rutabaga22 said:

I've seen tuff about MORL being with gemini. I was probably wrong, I haven't done much research into this.

There were studies for both, not sure on the context (if the Gemini ones were all the earlier ones, or what)

[Rutabaga22]

1 hour ago, Rutabaga22 said:

Could it be a graphical issue? I suspected waterfall, but it isn't the issue..

On 5/18/2023 at 5:24 AM, GoldForest said:

Image of the issue, this is a space shuttle with Photon Corp. SRBs lit, but it also happens with BDB.

[RocketBoy1641]

Working up an alt timelines and the launch/assembly logistics for a Skylab B based advanced station that builds out to incorporate ISS, MIR and planned but unemployed elements from Freedom/ISS.

Starting point will be Skylab V mission (expends remains supplies and some they bring).  The mission will have a secondary goal of finalizing design for a new advanced Skylab (Skylab B) that makes use of the Oxygen tank (nearly 25% increase in pressurized volume), but most is devoted toward advanced life support systems.  It will also use what I am approximating at the Common Berthing Mechanism or the BDB one that has the similar 50" wide passage as the lessons learned through Skylab & Salyut have suggested a large passage for equipment upgradablility or repair.

More to come over time....

Edit: Note- point of departure may get bumped up slightly to incorporate the canceled lunar missions....or most of them.

Edited May 23, 2023 by RocketBoy1641
Point of departure edit note

[Blufor878]

Something I learnt recently was that there was a proposal for SLS to use modernized Saturn V hardware.

[NaviG]

Hello, can i get some help here?

I tried to reinstall bluedog but i had no luck.

[GoldForest]

19 hours ago, Blufor878 said:

Something I learnt recently was that there was a proposal for SLS to use modernized Saturn V hardware.

Yeah, but afaik, it was nothing like that. Pyrio LRBs were put up as an option for the SLS boosters. Pyrios would have used 2 F-1Bs per booster. That's the only real Saturn hardware that was proposed, the F-1 engines, AFAIK.

There was an engine called the J-2X which was proposed for the SLS upper stage, but it's a J-2 in name only apparently. It used no hardware from actual J-2s. 

Unless you're talking about the Saturn Derived Launch Vehicles.

Even moar MORL tax!

Full album: Imgur: The magic of the Internet

Edited May 24, 2023 by GoldForest

[RocketBoy1641]

21 hours ago, Blufor878 said:

Something I learnt recently was that there was a proposal for SLS to use modernized Saturn V hardware.

SLS was pretty much guaranteed to not be a move back to a Saturn V with modernization.  I don't recall if it started with Congress making a law; but it was forced to use as much shuttle derived tech as possible.  You might say it was legislated or fiat (one or the other) pork barrel from the start.

[ra4nd0m]

22 hours ago, Blufor878 said:

SLS to use modernized Saturn V hardware

You should've at least switched to F1-B's on this.

[Blufor878]

4 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Yeah, but afaik, it was nothing like that. Pyrio LRBs were put up as an option for the SLS boosters. Pyrios would have used 2 F-1Bs per booster. That's the only real Saturn hardware that was proposed, the F-1 engines, AFAIK.

There was an engine called the J-2X which was proposed for the SLS upper stage, but it's a J-2 in name only apparently. It used no hardware from actual J-2s. 

Unless you're talking about the Saturn Derived Launch Vehicles.

 

2 hours ago, ra4nd0m said:

You should've at least switched to F1-B's on this.

I'm not saying you guys are wrong. But for the record I did not guarantee visual accuracy. Also this was my point of reference:
https://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/?p=1629

Though now that you guys mention it, the second stage tanks are too short on some of my variants as well. With that said, you guys clearly liked the pictures anyway, so Florida Man still prevails!

 

[Zorg]

On 5/23/2023 at 4:49 AM, shakuvendell said:

You might be thinking of MOL, without the "R".

 

On 5/23/2023 at 4:59 AM, Rutabaga22 said:

I've seen tuff about MORL being with gemini. I was probably wrong, I haven't done much research into this.

I dont have a full timeline as the documentation I have are from the later years but best I can tell it started out exclusively assuming a Gemini crew vehicle but then morphed to an Apollo baseline by the mid 60s. 

 

20 hours ago, NaviG said:

Hello, can i get some help here?

I tried to reinstall bluedog but i had no luck.

Do you have Kerbalism? If so that needs to be fixed on their side. But in the meantime it should be relatively harmless. I believe this means that when you switch to the double sized radiators you will not get double cooling power until this conflict is fixed. Not great but also wont kill your game.

[RocketBoy1641]

27 minutes ago, Zorg said:

 

I dont have a full timeline as the documentation I have are from the later years but best I can tell it started out exclusively assuming a Gemini crew vehicle but then morphed to an Apollo baseline by the mid 60s. 

 

Do you have Kerbalism? If so that needs to be fixed on their side. But in the meantime it should be relatively harmless. I believe this means that when you switch to the double sized radiators you will not get double cooling power until this conflict is fixed. Not great but also wont kill your game.

Pretty sure that is the same one I was getting fatal errors from about 60-90d back.  It was kerbalism side of things.  I know there is a patch; but for the moment I just ditched Kerbalism.  The weights just outweighed my interest in what it does for the moment.

[RocketBoy1641]

So, a few points on what I am cooking up

Apollo 18 & 19 go ahead for Hyginus Rille and Copernicus Crater.  One or both may get upscaled with a Titian III or Saturn I launched SheLab.  These would be scheduled in July and December of 72.

Apollo 15 would be treated similarly J missions but with a reschedule to Feb 72.

Apollo 1 and Apollo 13 happen as historical.  More work towards safety comes out of 13 than historical.

Vietnam conflict has less political interference with military efficiency.  A lot to be said here, but ultimately several events having to do with Tet 68 preparations turn it into a complete and TOTAL disaster for China, N. Vietnam, and the Viet Cong.  This leads to an end similar to a truce as with the Korean Conflict.  Costs draw down in 1968 ilinstead of rise.

Apollo 20 is used to launch Skylab in May 73 (as historical).  The Skylab 4 expedition gets the extra six days to make a full 90. Skylab 5 launches 6/74 and lasts 120 days using remaining supplies on station as well as supplies they bring, and one resupply mission with an Ardvark.

Skylab B to commence fitting out as a resupplyable station with more advanced life support systems, use of the BDB CADs docking on the axial port, rear docking adapter  with rear CADs, 2 Apollo docks and two other docking (yet to be decided for sure).

Launch date TBD

ESA Lab will be first add (axial dock).  Later additions will include the power tower above Harmony, (ESA moved to either port or starboard as Harmony takes the axial), and Columbus as the balancing module.

Space Shuttle- starts SLOW development on schedule, but at a sluggish pace.  It is designed to be an augment instead of a replacement.  It will do things that a shuttle is needed for.  Repair, retrieval, construction that a rocket/pod can not.  Initially TWO shuttles are built.  Challenger accidnet does not happen.  The Russians do build one shuttle (Buran) which is used operationally. This who Shuttle/Buran area has not been looked at much.

Growth continues slowly through the 80s and 90s.  TBD.

Feedback welcomed.

Edited May 24, 2023 by RocketBoy1641

[NaviG]

4 hours ago, Zorg said:

 

I dont have a full timeline as the documentation I have are from the later years but best I can tell it started out exclusively assuming a Gemini crew vehicle but then morphed to an Apollo baseline by the mid 60s. 

 

Do you have Kerbalism? If so that needs to be fixed on their side. But in the meantime it should be relatively harmless. I believe this means that when you switch to the double sized radiators you will not get double cooling power until this conflict is fixed. Not great but also wont kill your game.

Yes, i have kerbalism. Thanks for the explanation. 

Any one know how to avoid fast EC draining when cooling the LHO tanks?

[Surfingmonkeys]

I just downloaded and installed the new dev branch of BDB, but this error popped up upon starting the game. With the previous versions of the mod, I didn't have this issue. Am I missing any requisite packs?

[RocketBoy1641]

32 minutes ago, NaviG said:

Yes, i have kerbalism. Thanks for the explanation. 

Any one know how to avoid fast EC draining when cooling the LHO tanks?

The widget will tell you when you are working with the thermal control system that is bundled.  Part of it will be just how big of a tank you are keeping chilled as volume of the mass (and surface area) will come into play.

[RocketBoy1641]

35 minutes ago, Surfingmonkeys said:

I just downloaded and installed the new dev branch of BDB, but this error popped up upon starting the game. With the previous versions of the mod, I didn't have this issue. Am I missing any requisite packs?

Check for any life support related mods and see if you have the config files to make the two play nice together.

[RocketBoy1641]

imgrrrrrowling.  They don't want to upload nicely with the URL insert tool.  But, for what it is worth, here are the current pics of the Skylab B cluster as it would launch.  The SpaceLab airlock gets mounted to the UP node of the rear docking assembly.  I am still not settled on port types.

 

 

Note: yes, I chose the skylab airlock module instead of the SpaceLab module because it never hurts to have an emergency airlock (after other modules are incorperated).  Skylab 2 crew will bring the BDB airlock module.

Edited May 24, 2023 by RocketBoy1641
Imgr issues

[Surfingmonkeys]

I don't have any life support mods and didn't have to install compatibility patches in the past. Although, I got the game to work if I just ignored the error - it would just disappear after a while and using the new parts was not an issue.

[Zorg]

5 hours ago, RocketBoy1641 said:

imgrrrrrowling.  They don't want to upload nicely with the URL insert tool. 

Should work if you get a direct link to the image ending in .png .jpg etc. Can even just paste the link into the text directly and it will auto embed in the forum.

2 hours ago, Surfingmonkeys said:

I don't have any life support mods and didn't have to install compatibility patches in the past. Although, I got the game to work if I just ignored the error - it would just disappear after a while and using the new parts was not an issue.

If you post your module manager log and config cache might be able to find the culprit. But if you dont have any LS mods that looks relatively harmless. I guess a rogue LS patch in another mod is triggering the BDB patch incorrectly.

[CobaltWolf]

Alright, good news / bad news time. Good news - the new Helios parts are pretty much ready! Bad news - I'm going out of town and won't be back for over a week. So we'll have to wait a bit to see it.

[RocketBoy1641]

11 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Alright, good news / bad news time. Good news - the new Helios parts are pretty much ready! Bad news - I'm going out of town and won't be back for over a week. So we'll have to wait a bit to see it.

That's not bad news.  Thanks just life.  Enjoy the trip.

[NiL]

On 5/8/2023 at 6:04 PM, Zorg said:

1.5 and 1.25m fairings for Taurus/Minotaur C. The 1.25 is new and the 1.5 is the same as Minotaur IV.

What's the part used for the second stage of this beautiful rocket?

[Alpha512]

Am i doing something wrong or is INT-20 (3x F-1A) a ridiculously anemic vehicle? With full S-IC load it can't even lift off, and even with reduced prop load, dry weight is way too high and TWR is way too low. Shortening the S-IC makes it a bit more reasonable, but the overall performance is hardly any better than LRB-260 (2x F-1A) with S-IVB on top, so no extra gain for an extra engine