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

[CobaltWolf]

I had better luck using Atmosphere Autopilot's Fly By Wire controller, is anyone using that?

[LoadingTimeExpert]

No, I haven't. I'll give that a try.

[LoadingTimeExpert]

1 hour ago, LoadingTimeExpert said:

No, I haven't. I'll give that a try.

It does help quite a lot actually

[biohazard15]

3 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

I had better luck using Atmosphere Autopilot's Fly By Wire controller, is anyone using that?

I use that, and I would absolutely recommend it for pretty much anything that involves controlled flight. Especially if you use KB+M.

[Spaceman2000]

23 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

I had better luck using Atmosphere Autopilot's Fly By Wire controller, is anyone using that?

Yep, makes flying things much better, that plus MechJeb Smart A.S.S. has completely replaced SAS for me, they don't use EC too which is a lifesaver in Kerbalism

Edited January 8 by Spaceman2000

[Kassler Scott]

Is anyone else having trouble with the Apollo Command Module burning up on re-entry when reaction wheels are disabled? I'm trying to save electricity and the heat shield almost seems like it has holes in it that lead to the CM exploding on re-entry.

Ofc it's not a problem when reaction wheels are enabled.

[LoadingTimeExpert]

"AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" —Jebediah Kerman

So it turns out the X-15 is not designed to reenter at near orbital velocity. I was doing some tests with BDArmory and a certain kinetic kill vehicle, but it seems I pushed it a little too far.

They were fine, by the way. But it did get a little...

toasty

[Blufor878]

11 minutes ago, LoadingTimeExpert said:

"AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" —Jebediah Kerman

So it turns out the X-15 is not designed to reenter at near orbital velocity. I was doing some tests with BDArmory and a certain kinetic kill vehicle, but it seems I pushed it a little too far.

They were fine, by the way. But it did get a little...

toasty

Tell Jeb to quit whining.

[GoldForest]

13 hours ago, Kassler Scott said:

Is anyone else having trouble with the Apollo Command Module burning up on re-entry when reaction wheels are disabled? I'm trying to save electricity and the heat shield almost seems like it has holes in it that lead to the CM exploding on re-entry.

Ofc it's not a problem when reaction wheels are enabled.

The heat shield has to be kept pointed almost perfectly, otherwise the CM will overheat. 

If you disable reaction control wheels, be sure to enable RCS. It's disabled by default on the CM. 

12 hours ago, LoadingTimeExpert said:

"AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" —Jebediah Kerman

 

So it turns out the X-15 is not designed to reenter at near orbital velocity. I was doing some tests with BDArmory and a certain kinetic kill vehicle, but it seems I pushed it a little too far.

They were fine, by the way. But it did get a little...

 

toasty

X-15 always survives Reentry fine for me. And I play on 2.5x

[Spaceman2000]

23 hours ago, LoadingTimeExpert said:

So it turns out the X-15 is not designed to reenter at near orbital velocity. I was doing some tests with BDArmory and a certain kinetic kill vehicle, but it seems I pushed it a little too far.

That's weird, I regularly launch it orbitally and even managed to return from the Mun. Have you flown it completely flat  in the direction of reentry?

Edited January 10 by Spaceman2000
Made an oopsie in the direction mentioned

[Kassler Scott]

14 hours ago, GoldForest said:

The heat shield has to be kept pointed almost perfectly, otherwise the CM will overheat. 

If you disable reaction control wheels, be sure to enable RCS. It's disabled by default on the CM. 

X-15 always survives Reentry fine for me. And I play on 2.5x

I've had RCS enabled, but the problem for me seems to be that RCS isn't strong enough to keep oriented in the right spot during re-entry from the Moon (From the Earth it's fine) whenever I have my CoM offset. Funny enough, when I have my CoM offset, the capsule offsets in the wrong direction, pointing slightly up instead of slightly down as it should.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reentry_capsule#/media/File:Apollo_cm.jpg

Here is how it should be facing, mine offsets the opposite way ;-;

[GoldForest]

9 hours ago, Kassler Scott said:

I've had RCS enabled, but the problem for me seems to be that RCS isn't strong enough to keep oriented in the right spot during re-entry from the Moon (From the Earth it's fine) whenever I have my CoM offset. Funny enough, when I have my CoM offset, the capsule offsets in the wrong direction, pointing slightly up instead of slightly down as it should.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reentry_capsule#/media/File:Apollo_cm.jpg

Here is how it should be facing, mine offsets the opposite way ;-;

The offset is fine, you have the craft oriented wrong. Use the RCS to spin the CM. The RCS isn't really meant to pitch or yaw, it's for roll control more than anything else. If you use the offset, roll the CM to the correct orientation. 

Edited January 11 by GoldForest

[Kassler Scott]

8 hours ago, GoldForest said:

The offset is fine, you have the craft oriented wrong. Use the RCS to spin the CM. The RCS isn't really meant to pitch or yaw, it's for roll control more than anything else. If you use the offset, roll the CM to the correct orientation. 

So is the front door/windows of the CM supposed to be facing towards the surface or away from it? I've always read it needs to be facing away from the surface, but when I have it oriented that way, the CM dips in the wrong directions. If the "front" of the CM is meant to be facing towards the surface then whoopsies, sorry Kerbals xD

[GoldForest]

1 hour ago, Kassler Scott said:

So is the front door/windows of the CM supposed to be facing towards the surface or away from it? I've always read it needs to be facing away from the surface, but when I have it oriented that way, the CM dips in the wrong directions. If the "front" of the CM is meant to be facing towards the surface then whoopsies, sorry Kerbals xD

I don't know. I don't use the offset at all. I just know that you're supposed to roll the CM during reentry to change its direction. 

@CobaltWolf will (Probably) be able to tell you all about it though. 

Edited January 11 by GoldForest

[Kassler Scott]

Is anyone else suddenly having a problem with the Apollo Lunar Adapter segment not decoupling and refusing to release the LM? My rockets were just fine before but I must have screwed something up because now just clicking "Decouple payload" does nothing

Edited Saturday at 11:35 PM by Kassler Scott

[GoldForest]

6 hours ago, Kassler Scott said:

Is anyone else suddenly having a problem with the Apollo Lunar Adapter segment not decoupling and refusing to release the LM? My rockets were just fine before but I must have screwed something up because now just clicking "Decouple payload" does nothing

Be sure to have the right nodes attached to each other. If you don't, the LM will get stuck. It's a common issue with the LM. 

The LM has two nodes very close to each other, one for the engine, one for the decoupler. You can tell you have the right one when you can remove the LM and the engine comes with it.

[Razgriz1]

On 1/11/2025 at 12:57 PM, Kassler Scott said:

So is the front door/windows of the CM supposed to be facing towards the surface or away from it? I've always read it needs to be facing away from the surface, but when I have it oriented that way, the CM dips in the wrong directions. If the "front" of the CM is meant to be facing towards the surface then whoopsies, sorry Kerbals xD

The Apollo capsule was designed so that the astronauts would reenter with their heads facing downward toward the surface.

91A7l.png (462×504)

So you would want your windows on the side facing the surface.

[Kassler Scott]

1 hour ago, Razgriz1 said:

The Apollo capsule was designed so that the astronauts would reenter with their heads facing downward toward the surface.

91A7l.png (462×504)

So you would want your windows on the side facing the surface.

Okay I see, besides, I did recently watch the Apollo 11 documentary and yup, I was DEFINITELY facing the wrong way xD

Now I'm usually re-entering Earth's atmosphere using KSRSS at around 40km perigee, which I thought should be enough, but even with offset mass and facing the right way, I still burn up. So I'll probably have to experiment with different starting perigees to get it right :3

[Kassler Scott]

21 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Be sure to have the right nodes attached to each other. If you don't, the LM will get stuck. It's a common issue with the LM. 

The LM has two nodes very close to each other, one for the engine, one for the decoupler. You can tell you have the right one when you can remove the LM and the engine comes with it.

Okay so I just came back after trying what you suggested. Yes, I have the nodes perfectly in place, the rocket was working just fine for me not too long ago. At one point I enabled staging on the adapter base, and when I did that, it did not work; it doesn't work when I activate the stage, or when I try and activate the stage manually at all anymore, even after reverting the changes.

At this point I'm not too sure what to do about it ;-;

Edited Monday at 04:08 AM by Kassler Scott

[kerbal fella]

Hear me out reddog design Bureau and its russian/Soviet stuff

 

 

Trust

 

 

 

Also add the dyna-soar 

Does the Soyuz in Soviet mod work with the apollo-soyuz part in bdb @TheSpaceToffee

(I don't know how to reply)

Edited Tuesday at 02:32 AM by kerbal fella

[TheSpaceToffee]

@kerbal fella Eyup lad, there's already mods for Soviet stuff and the Dyna-Soar

Soviet stuff

Dyna-Soar

[GoldForest]

7 hours ago, Kassler Scott said:

Okay so I just came back after trying what you suggested. Yes, I have the nodes perfectly in place, the rocket was working just fine for me not too long ago. At one point I enabled staging on the adapter base, and when I did that, it did not work; it doesn't work when I activate the stage, or when I try and activate the stage manually at all anymore, even after reverting the changes.

At this point I'm not too sure what to do about it ;-;

Hmmm, I'm not sure what that could be, but the most likely culprit is a file or two in KSP has gotten corupted. It happens from time to time. When that happens, you have to redownload KSP/verify all the files are good. 

Copy your save and gamedata folder to a backup location, then redownload KSP/verify the files through steam. 

[DaveyJ576]

SATURN I

All hail the Saturn I! It was built so early that there was no payload for it. When the payload came along, changes to policy and heavier payloads made it obsolete. It is still a good looking but chunky rocket.

The Block 3 is my designation for a version that was originally intended but never flown. It had a third stage called the S-V, which according to several sources was "nearly identical to the Centaur." The Block 2 Apollo A was a very early Apollo proposal that used a minimal, lightweight Service Module with solid motors instead of the SPS. There was a small lab underneath the SM that could be accessed with a transposition & docking maneuver. AS-101 is what the stack would have looked like if it had ever flown an actual Apollo CSM (very light fueled). I have actually flown these two versions on a 2.7x KSRSS and got them to a 100 km circular orbit, barely.

Finally, two alternate reality versions. The first is what may have transpired with Gemini if the pogo problems with Titan II could not have been overcome, or if the Air Force had refused to cooperate. The second is the General Electric Apollo D-2 proposal during the earliest Apollo discussions. The spacecraft is from the long dormant Alternate Apollo mod. It sure would be nice of someone could adopt this and bring it up to BDB standards... just sayin'. I have flown both of these and they work great!

Edited Monday at 05:33 PM by DaveyJ576

[Kassler Scott]

11 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Hmmm, I'm not sure what that could be, but the most likely culprit is a file or two in KSP has gotten corupted. It happens from time to time. When that happens, you have to redownload KSP/verify all the files are good. 

Copy your save and gamedata folder to a backup location, then redownload KSP/verify the files through steam. 

I think that's probably a safe bet; my instance of the game doesn't go through Steam, but I can always just install another instance and move it elsewhere like I do all my other game instances.

If that doesn't work I'll just try and reinstall BDB altogether. Thanks a ton for helping a little goober like me :3

[Pappystein]

7 hours ago, DaveyJ576 said:

SATURN I

All hail the Saturn I! It was built so early that there was no payload for it. When the payload came along, changes to policy and heavier payloads made it obsolete. It is still a good looking but chunky rocket.

 

The Block 3 is my designation for a version that was originally intended but never flown. It had a third stage called the S-V, which according to several sources was "nearly identical to the Centaur."

 

Nice work there on all the Cluster Saturn I rockets!   Now get to making the UA1205/1206F Saturn I and the Saturn I Monohull!  *I JOKE I JOKE*

RE S-V.   "Nearly Identical" is both more and less correct than it seems.   Von Braun HATED, ABSOLUTELY HATED, the idea of Balloon tanks, He did not trust them and it was only well into the Atlas Agena campaign out of the Cape before he grudgingly accepted the of such devices.   So to meet needs Convair designed the S-V utilizing the Centaur "waterline" but using a much thicker gauge sheet steel that had extra reinforcements.  The extra mass was offset by using the RL10-B3 (XLR-119 USAF designation where RL10-A3 is LR-115) engine with its higher thrust.     The Higher thrust was greater than the mass gain and thus S-V stage was more efficient/powerful than standard Centaur.    Note I said Convair Designed S-V.... Not NASA Lewis.    It was NASA Lewis Research center that "fixed" Centaur and designed all follow on Centaurs until Centaur III.  Incidentally Centaur III's actual designation is Centaur D.3 .    It is also Lewis who screwed up the naming convention for the Centaur family as laid out by Convair which makes researching them FUN.

Lewis Research would re-design The S-V a total of 2 times after fixing Centaur A (latter Centaur D because of their nomenclature screw-up/inconsistencies) 

Edited Tuesday at 01:13 AM by Pappystein