Jump to content

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


CobaltWolf

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, JustDark said:

Why

jAFbaJX.png

Why? because of our rigorous testing regime :P

Anyways I've fixed it but this may affect craft files

Image

and this variant had to be killed off.

Image

which is a shame but the 0.9375m variant has a 0.625 node too 

Image

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JustDark said:

Why

jAFbaJX.png

The clipping is only visual and not with the actual collider of the interstage (further more that blanket bit clips with the stringer bit). the interstage still separates cleanly with the aft MDA if you used those ports and the 0.625 node.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Zorg said:

What do people think? I can revert the fix but personally lean towards keeping the fix as I think more clearance is better and opens up more options...

Is it possible to have both as a B9 switch (kind of like the COM change on the capsules)? If not, I'd go for the new ones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Beccab said:

Is it possible to have both as a B9 switch (kind of like the COM change on the capsules)? If not, I'd go for the new ones

that gonna get a little messy tbh with the changes I made to the mesh and the baked AO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2022 at 6:59 PM, DeadJohn said:

I asked a similar question 2 weeks ago. My quoted question and the answer is at the link below.

My use differs. It makes an awesome 4-crew direct ascent 2.5x KSRSS Moon lander, able to do more biome hopping than the Apollo LEM, and needs a much smaller lifter than a full Saturn V. Screenshot below.

(In contract mode, Apollo with full science instruments costs me 480k credits to put 2 crew on the Moon. Leo Direct Ascent only costs 134k, has more DV, puts 4 on Moon, and skips 2 docking operations.https://imgur.com/vYnEVK)

vYnEVKl.png

Wow! That looks nice as a Gemini Lander, What launch Vehicle Did you use for this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, AlphaMensae said:

LC-34 and 37 were deactivated as a cost-saving measure when the moon landings started as NASA's budget was already being slashed.

LC-34 was of course later abandoned in place as a memorial to Apollo 1.

Well, the other part of my decision to do this was that I want to fly shuttle missions from LC-39 and I couldn’t justify the idea of keeping those pads equipped with infrastructure for both Saturn and STS hardware. Hence the downsize to the original Saturn pads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shlyopa said:

Why would someone need c8 when MLV exist?

that's the point, there is no reason to have ''C-8 not-NOVA''

it's just, some people ask for it, just because they like this conceptual abomination of a rocket

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zorg said:

What do people think? I can revert the fix but personally lean towards keeping the fix as I think more clearance is better and opens up more options...

but this may affect craft files

It was such a minor issue that I prefer the old way to avoid breaking saved vessels and those already in orbit. In actual use the original part didn't have a decoupling problem during my [limited] testing.

The docking ports can be offset in VAB if someone needs more visual clearance during decoupling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, donnager fan said:

Wow! That looks nice as a Gemini Lander, What launch Vehicle Did you use for this?

Customized Saturn IB. Picture below to show tanks and engines, with fairing ejected to make the lander visible.

  • 1st stage "16K" tank uses the longest stretched variant to get extra fuel, and 5 Cordele engines borrowed from BDB Titan to get a good combination of DV and TWR.
  • 2nd stage SIVB tank is unstretched. Mount has 2 engines for better TWR for circularization and lunar transfer.

Reminder: this is with the Skyhawk Science System tech tree and 2.5x KSRSS. I've already unlocked many engine upgrades.

XazcufR.png

Edited by DeadJohn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Zorg said:

Why? because of our rigorous testing regime :P

Anyways I've fixed it but this may affect craft files

Image

and this variant had to be killed off.

Image

which is a shame but the 0.9375m variant has a 0.625 node too 

Image

 

there should be a in setted version

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Zorg said:

Why? because of our rigorous testing regime :P

Anyways I've fixed it but this may affect craft files

Image

and this variant had to be killed off.

Image

which is a shame but the 0.9375m variant has a 0.625 node too 

Image

 

If not switchable; I would go with the additional clearance.  I have hung up and been unable to detach the interstage when I had a pair of Apollo style and a pair of Stock ports on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Starhelperdude said:

that's the point, there is no reason to have ''C-8 not-NOVA''

it's just, some people ask for it, just because they like this conceptual abomination of a rocket

Well, my reason for sort of wanting it is more the first stage - because if you're doing stuff like single launch station flights to, say, Jool, I could see it being useful. Or if you're trying to assemble something for going to Grannus at JNSQ scale, and want to make sure you don't leave anything behind in the process - while having 6 Regors is good, 8 (or potentially more, with a more efficient layout) would be better for SHLLV applications, if nothing else because it would also enable a greater core diameter (and thus, more room for mounting SRBs/LRBs if required). That said, one option would be for someone to devise a mockup "C-8/Nova" configuration, possibly using Near Future LV parts to supply tanks of sufficient diameter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Zorg said:

What do people think? I can revert the fix but personally lean towards keeping the fix as I think more clearance is better and opens up more options...

I think the fix is a huge improvement. Even though the previous clipping didn't affect the collider, it's still better for parts to not be visually clipping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks

6 hours ago, DeadJohn said:

Customized Saturn IB. Picture below to show tanks and engines, with fairing ejected to make the lander visible.

  • 1st stage "16K" tank uses the longest stretched variant to get extra fuel, and 5 Cordele engines borrowed from BDB Titan to get a good combination of DV and TWR.
  • 2nd stage SIVB tank is unstretched. Mount has 2 engines for better TWR for circularization and lunar transfer.

Reminder: this is with the Skyhawk Science System tech tree and 2.5x KSRSS. I've already unlocked many engine upgrades.

XazcufR.png

Thanks! Btw no les? Also what is that adapter part? on the lander?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, donnager fan said:

I thought that the advanced Gemini stuff had an LES

Big G is sometimes shown with a LES, but I don't think regular Gemini was going to get one. I could be wrong. 

 

7 hours ago, DeadJohn said:

XazcufR.png

I like how your pads are just floating on the water. Like NASA couldn't be bothered to terraform the marsh, so they just made man-made Islands and just transport all their rockets by barge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...