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

[dave1904]

1 hour ago, Pappystein said:

Mass is scaled in BDB by fuel capacity (it is a direct result of the fuel capacity.)   The mass you see listed is for the NON-TANK (structural rings between the tanks etc)  Those are a very SMALL part of the tank mass.

depends on what you are building.  LDC covers SOO MANY DIFFERENT ROCKETS!

My favorite is using the Herkales parts, I run XLR129s or RL20s in a 4x arrangement  and 2 or 4 UA-1207s depending on payload.   All engines ignite on the ground in my builds.    I have also used the RMM CH4 STME engine as seen:
 

That particular rocket built many of my International Space stations (since I don't like how robot arm works in KSP either via expansion or mods)

Second stage is big tank with LR87-LH2 VAC engines (2 or 4)

While this is not a "Historical" Build, most of the 1980s and 1970s and 1960s LDCs were all Aerozine 50 / NTO,  There was documentation (shop talk, not an actual design) for a proposed LCH4 variant right as Lockheed took over Martin Marietta.

 

Ive tryed building it like this Titan 3L2 and it doesnt have the trust once the srbs are gone. Even with ground lit version

 Im going to either use the E-1 and switch to RP-1 or use LH2 second Stage. Probably both.  All I know is that stage 1 and 2 being aerozine50 do not work haha. I want to stick to parts from that era. 

[Pappystein]

23 hours ago, dave1904 said:

Ive tryed building it like this Titan 3L2 and it doesnt have the trust once the srbs are gone. Even with ground lit version

 Im going to either use the E-1 and switch to RP-1 or use LH2 second Stage. Probably both.  All I know is that stage 1 and 2 being aerozine50 do not work haha. I want to stick to parts from that era. 

First, if we are going to use a websource best to use one that is somewhat accurate even if you have to use Wayback machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220321062228/https://www.spacelaunchreport.com/Titan-3L24.jpg

Sourced From:

https://web.archive.org/web/20180405050445/http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/library.html

Mark Wade (Astronautix) was a one man Wiki for most of Astronautix and has quite a few errors across much of the work.   Great place to find a name for something...  Not so much with actual history/operation of hypothetical units.

Conversely,

While Ed Kyle (owner of now defunct Space Launch Reports) is also a one man crew, he uses forms like NASASpaceFlight to verify data before publishing it, and more to the point, ACTUALLY posts(ed) corrections

you are using the TWIN BELL LR87s for AZ/50 then correct?  Not the Single Bell engines?

LR87-AJ-9/11 SHOULD lift a 3L2 with a moderate payload.  Also just like regular Titan, if you are flying with full tanks you are "fooling yourself"  reduce tank capacity to 90% all tanks for AZ50/NTO

from my notes, the LDC tanks should be at 87.5% full   All but one tank at 90% full and the larger of the upper stage tanks at 80% full should get you the valid numbers roughly

 

Edited February 20 by Pappystein

[dave1904]

18 hours ago, Pappystein said:

you are using the TWIN BELL LR87s for AZ/50 then correct?  Not the Single Bell engines?

I'm using 4 single engines. I do not use the bluedog hypergolic patch but skyhawks. Full tanks however. Ive not looked into it further since my post and will have to look into reducing the fuel loads. 

[Pappystein]

6 hours ago, dave1904 said:

I'm using 4 single engines. I do not use the bluedog hypergolic patch but skyhawks. Full tanks however. Ive not looked into it further since my post and will have to look into reducing the fuel loads. 

The Skyhawk patch is loosely based on the Patch that JSO and I developed for BDB, it should use the same math.   But yes all LDC Titans flew were to fly with standard LR87 twin bell affairs.   So you get the 4 port base, and you have to place then rotate the engines 45 degrees and they fit in the pie-shaped cutouts.   4 single LR87s don't have the power to lift just the lower LDC tank, full, with no payload as I recall.

 

[Zorg]

10 hours ago, Pappystein said:

The Skyhawk patch is loosely based on the Patch that JSO and I developed for BDB, it should use the same math.   But yes all LDC Titans flew were to fly with standard LR87 twin bell affairs.   So you get the 4 port base, and you have to place then rotate the engines 45 degrees and they fit in the pie-shaped cutouts.   4 single LR87s don't have the power to lift just the lower LDC tank, full, with no payload as I recall.

 

hwaaa? Somethings gone very wrong if thats the case. Im pretty sure the sea level singles are supposed to have the same stats as half of a regular twin version of each generation.

Edit: maybe I missed something you are talking about using 4 doubles on the core?

edit2: just reading up the thread, its worth considering that the BDB LDC is a rough representation of a number of different large diameter concepts with differing core diameters. Some of builds  may need to be defueled a bit as the in game core is likely too large. I never did test all the LDC builds for performance listed on Spacelaunchreport.

Edited Saturday at 10:05 AM by Zorg

[dave1904]

On 2/22/2025 at 12:23 AM, Pappystein said:

The Skyhawk patch is loosely based on the Patch that JSO and I developed for BDB, it should use the same math.   But yes all LDC Titans flew were to fly with standard LR87 twin bell affairs.   So you get the 4 port base, and you have to place then rotate the engines 45 degrees and they fit in the pie-shaped cutouts.   4 single LR87s don't have the power to lift just the lower LDC tank, full, with no payload as I recall.

 

Just like zorg im confused. Are you saying it had 8 bells by design like the left image? In that case the engine shroud is larger than the core itself. 

 

The shroud is no issue if its 8 single bell versions however. 

[DaveyJ576]

Okay, I might be suffering from a very bad case of being dense, but is anyone else having trouble with the Mariner 8/9 when it comes to the payload separator? It seems to be clipping on the bottom mounted Mariner 6/7 Scanning Platform and the spacecraft will not cleanly separate. By using the move tool to reposition the scanning platform, I have been able to go from a Kraken-like explosion to a simple hang up and failure to separate. I honestly don't know what is wrong. It seems like the node is messed up or the scanning platform is too big. I have tried the Mariner Payload Separation Mechanism, the  Mariner 10 Payload Separation Mechanism, the Ranger/Mariner Payload Separation Mechanism, even the Surveyor Payload Decoupler. They all clip and hang up. Am I using the wrong scanning platform?  @CobaltWolf himself said it was used on Mariner 8/9. Is there another?

 

@Zorg, @Rodger

[rocketguy1]

I saw that the Titan II parts are being deprecated. Does this mean that if i install the next update the parts will be gone and the craft files with them will become unusable? Or will the textures just be different?

[DaveyJ576]

2 hours ago, rocketguy1 said:

I saw that the Titan II parts are being deprecated. Does this mean that if i install the next update the parts will be gone and the craft files with them will become unusable? Or will the textures just be different?

Many of the Titan parts have been combined together into one part, with the variations now available via a B9 part switch in the PAW. The parts are still there, you just have to switch the original part to the one you want.

Yes, unfortunately this breaks previously existing craft files. The dev team took this approach in order to reduce the size of the download package and keep the number of individual parts lower. It is easier for them to maintain the mod that way.

[rocketguy1]

1 hour ago, DaveyJ576 said:

Many of the Titan parts have been combined together into one part, with the variations now available via a B9 part switch in the PAW. The parts are still there, you just have to switch the original part to the one you want.

Yes, unfortunately this breaks previously existing craft files. The dev team took this approach in order to reduce the size of the download package and keep the number of individual parts lower. It is easier for them to maintain the mod that way.

Ok, thank you. While I'm here, i saw that the engine in this mod used for the upper stage in the Artemis Construction Kit mod is deprecated. Does that mean that mod is just gonna be non functional?

[Zorg]

3 hours ago, rocketguy1 said:

Ok, thank you. While I'm here, i saw that the engine in this mod used for the upper stage in the Artemis Construction Kit mod is deprecated. Does that mean that mod is just gonna be non functional?

Like the Titan parts, the RL10 models have now been combined into one. It should not negatively affect ACK if you have BDB installed. Since ACK hasnt updated with the new BDB changes, ACK includes two RL10 models, one with fixed nozzle variants and a separate RL10-B2 with extending nozzle animation. ACK is setup with the same part names as BDB for copied parts, and have a module manager patch to deactivate them if BDB is detected. 

So if you have BDB and ACK installed together you will simply be using the the single RL10 included in the BDB files and choosing the B2 as a variant. The only danger is if you built a craft using the separate B2 model from ACK and then installed BDB afterwards (I will mention this to Benjee).

Edited Monday at 06:09 AM by Zorg

[Pappystein]

On 2/22/2025 at 4:57 AM, Zorg said:

hwaaa? Somethings gone very wrong if thats the case. Im pretty sure the sea level singles are supposed to have the same stats as half of a regular twin version of each generation.

Edit: maybe I missed something you are talking about using 4 doubles on the core?

edit2: just reading up the thread, its worth considering that the BDB LDC is a rough representation of a number of different large diameter concepts with differing core diameters. Some of builds  may need to be defueled a bit as the in game core is likely too large. I never did test all the LDC builds for performance listed on Spacelaunchreport.

 

On 2/23/2025 at 5:50 AM, dave1904 said:

Just like zorg im confused. Are you saying it had 8 bells by design like the left image? In that case the engine shroud is larger than the core itself. 

\

 

Yes, Cobalt designed the LDC parts in BDB to run in this configuration using AZ50/NTO or LFO.   He chose one of the larger LDC proposals as his build level but wanted the actual rocket to be between Saturn IB (3.75 at the time) and 2.5m.   Honestly the LDC you are trying to make with 4 singles should be on a 2.5m Diameter Rocket.      This was something discussed both behind the scenes via DM and on the TwitchStreams that CobaltWolf ran for building these parts.   The Pie shape of the 4x opening is exactly for the twin LR87 engine and that is why there is a shroud-less LR87 variant.  If you look there is nearly no clipping on the pie-plate opening and the engine from any angle once the engines are rotated 45 degrees.

As I recall, the KSP Diameters for the LDC Rockets run from 2.125 all the way up to 3.75m   3.125 is a happy median point given 2.125 was never going to happen (there is literally no other rocket that scales to that level thus zero lego-ablity)

Also the 3.125 parts are actually longer than would have been IRL to allow you to simulate the 3.75m one (Delta V... 3.125 is probably less drag given the higher fineness ratio)

But for my Titan V (LDC)  I went XLR129 x5 OR RL20P3 x5 or STME x1   for the first stage,   2nd stage LARGE was 4x LR87-LH2-VAC and 2nd Stage Small was 2x LR87-LH2-VAC.

Note the RL20P3 was the most controllable in flight, the STME is the most efficient but least controllable...   STME did not like flying with hammerhead configurations (larger diameter PLF) in stock Aero.

 

Given how Blowfish set up B9PartSwitch to allow model switching, at some point going back and making a scaled or even new LESS LDC LDC (aka 2.5m LDC) part set might not be the worst idea ever.   And yes I realize that is a damn lot of work to have to do for the result.

 

 

ALSO just re-read the post.   There WAS a 4x Shroud variant that had bumps to prevent the LR87 Twin frame from showing.   Is it not available anymore?  (I haven't built an LDC with LR87s in a few updates now!)

 

Edited Monday at 08:05 PM by Pappystein

[Pappystein]

Ok @dave1904

 

Full AZ50/NTO fueled (from bottom to top 80% 100%, 90% 100%) with maximal tank length but no payload.

LR87-AJ-11-1 Engine bell model has changed slightly since it was original built and I had to cant the engines out one degree click but these are the twin bell engines.   And this is the right Engine mount/shroud.    Note the reason for the cant is because the LR87s bells were updated to more accurate shapes in the art pass on Titan with in the last year or so...    Without the cant the bells are JUST touching at their widest part where two engines interface.

0.99 TWR for a payload-less rocket seems GOOD when it is intended to fly with 2 or 4 UA120x or SMRUs.  

If you are having any issues with this build I would suggest it is Skyhawk that is the issue.  

[Pappystein]

 

Flies fine 2 on 2 off,   However I should have probably made certain ALL my tanks were on AZ50 NTO... this bird topped out at 10KM as it was (payload is an Aardvark  turned into a space probe instead of station resupply craft)

 

Engines sticking out of the fairing are from the Aardvark's cradle... I thought there was a version of this without retros?

First stage tanks are 100% AZ50/NTO (over massed) and the 2nd stage is Tank 1 100% 5050 tank 2 80%AZ50/NTO (at mass)    (Aerozine is a trade name many scientists just call it 5050)

 

In orbit,  I will tell you that this was not a pretty Flight,   There wasn't enough TWR after the SRMs ejected to keep attitude with MechJeb (I had to manually add pitch to fly UP instead of OUT) But it made orbit mostly thanks to the way over powered 2nd stage... which is also part of why It was tough to get into orbit.   This rocket was overbuilt for a 2+2 Launch with +2 LR87s at 10% srm fuel left....   Needed all 4 LR87s at launch to get a good TWR after SRM separation (TWR was 1.15 at separation which is too low for 10km with a rocket that is trying to go horizontal)

ALTERNATIVELY flying with 4 UA1205s would have probably done the trick as well since the rocket would be above 15-20km at burnout instead of at 11km

 

Edited Monday at 09:18 PM by Pappystein

[unpluggedlamp]

I've been having an issue with the decoupler on the BDB Atlas V. When loading the stock craft file, the decoupler/adapter that separates the Centaur from the Atlas V does not work and the rocket stays attached.

[rocketguy1]

19 hours ago, Zorg said:

Like the Titan parts, the RL10 models have now been combined into one. It should not negatively affect ACK if you have BDB installed. Since ACK hasnt updated with the new BDB changes, ACK includes two RL10 models, one with fixed nozzle variants and a separate RL10-B2 with extending nozzle animation. ACK is setup with the same part names as BDB for copied parts, and have a module manager patch to deactivate them if BDB is detected. 

So if you have BDB and ACK installed together you will simply be using the the single RL10 included in the BDB files and choosing the B2 as a variant. The only danger is if you built a craft using the separate B2 model from ACK and then installed BDB afterwards (I will mention this to Benjee).

Does this mean that the craft files that come with ACK will become unusable?

[KeaKaka]

2 hours ago, rocketguy1 said:

Does this mean that the craft files that come with ACK will become unusable?

Thankfully no, you'll just need to swap out the affected parts before they're hard depreciated in a later update

[dave1904]

13 hours ago, Pappystein said:

 

Flies fine 2 on 2 off,   However I should have probably made certain ALL my tanks were on AZ50 NTO... this bird topped out at 10KM as it was (payload is an Aardvark  turned into a space probe instead of station resupply craft)

 

Engines sticking out of the fairing are from the Aardvark's cradle... I thought there was a version of this without retros?

First stage tanks are 100% AZ50/NTO (over massed) and the 2nd stage is Tank 1 100% 5050 tank 2 80%AZ50/NTO (at mass)    (Aerozine is a trade name many scientists just call it 5050)

 

In orbit,  I will tell you that this was not a pretty Flight,   There wasn't enough TWR after the SRMs ejected to keep attitude with MechJeb (I had to manually add pitch to fly UP instead of OUT) But it made orbit mostly thanks to the way over powered 2nd stage... which is also part of why It was tough to get into orbit.   This rocket was overbuilt for a 2+2 Launch with +2 LR87s at 10% srm fuel left....   Needed all 4 LR87s at launch to get a good TWR after SRM separation (TWR was 1.15 at separation which is too low for 10km with a rocket that is trying to go horizontal)

ALTERNATIVELY flying with 4 UA1205s would have probably done the trick as well since the rocket would be above 15-20km at burnout instead of at 11km

 

Thanks for the effort. The funny thing it was the concept images that were confusing me. The BDB wiki also has 4 visual bells. I did think to myself that 4 L87s would be your standard twin nozzle engine because that's what it was. 

I've not flow this yet but I'm sure it has no issues. I've managed to get 19 tons with 4 single engines into orbit. I've 3.5 rescale so benefit from lower wet/dry masses. First stage lofts my upper stages further. Irony is larger systems make certain launch profiles easier. 

[dave1904]

@Pappystein This is my one. Went for Titan-IV paint. The centaur upper stage would have made orbit if I had actually lofted higher HAHA. It still counts as a success. Was to focused on screenshots. Thanks again. 

Spoiler

 

[rocketguy1]

21 hours ago, KeaKaka said:

Thankfully no, you'll just need to swap out the affected parts before they're hard depreciated in a later update

ok, thank you.

[Flamey_End_Up]

All of the MOL/Gemini Space Station endcaps have farings built in. Is this on purpose? its quite annoying

[Pappystein]

9 hours ago, Flamey_End_Up said:

All of the MOL/Gemini Space Station endcaps have farings built in. Is this on purpose? its quite annoying

Yes, they predate SAF Fairing and allow you to build a stage that is on the rocket that has a nosecone without playing with KSP's not realistic nose cone parts (where the part is significant size etc.)    AS I UNDERSTAND IT.

 

Yes they can be annoying, but it is less annoying than trying to make an exposed skin module with a nosecone on top that is easy to remove.