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

[CobaltWolf]

Well, I do have good news...

 

The cluster of three experiments in the middle are the daisy-chain experiments using the science definitions @MaverickSawyer wrote. The two on the left are microwave radiometers. The two on the far right are an infrared spectrometer and infrared radiometer, respectively. The griddy boi above is a "Beacon and telemetry antenna" apparently.

Edited January 30, 2020 by CobaltWolf

[CobaltWolf]

Doing a short (1-2 hour) stream to get these in game!

[MuriloMoreira]

This mod have support fo RO ?

 

[blowfish]

1 hour ago, MuriloMoreira said:

This mod have support fo RO ?

That's a RO question, not a BDB question.  RO support is maintained in the RO repository, not individual mods.

That being said, RO does have configs for BDB but they're somewhat out of date and have some issues at present.

[CobaltWolf]

Nimbus E / an erroneous Delta M with a Delta F upper (it's supposed to be a Delta 900)

[Pappystein]

1 hour ago, CobaltWolf said:

 

Doth mine eyes deceive?   Did you solve the Tracking issue with the parallel panels?

 

[CobaltWolf]

27 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

Doth mine eyes deceive?   Did you solve the Tracking issue with the parallel panels?

Indeed. The module was only written with non-tracking panels in mind (since usually a tracking panel, y'know you want it to fold in radial symmetry and then it will just track to be parallel once deployed), so the Nimbus panels were an edge case in that they had to mount mirrored but still track. A minor change to the module by @Jso and we are all good!

Nimbus 7 / Delta 2910

[Pappystein]

5 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Indeed. The module was only written with non-tracking panels in mind (since usually a tracking panel, y'know you want it to fold in radial symmetry and then it will just track to be parallel once deployed), so the Nimbus panels were an edge case in that they had to mount mirrored but still track. A minor change to the module by @Jso and we are all good!

Nimbus 7 / Delta 2910

 

NICE!   And thanks @Jso!

Now I just have to wait the 10 minutes for my return capsule to float down to the ground and re-download the dev branch.   I haven't installed RealChute yet and I *FEEL* like I could probably return a full up Mercury capsule with the Return Bucket Parachute.    The bucket falls at ~2m/s  which is a bit slow for controlled game-play IMO.  IRL it was that slow so the Dollar19s and the Herky Birds could snag them in the air (lets not forget the M/C/HH-53s used to snag them!)

I am assuming the Choppers because of their use with the D-21 and other recon drones for recovery.  

 

 

[dave1904]

I know the muo 3.5 meter fair adapter is intended to be used with the inon 1.85m interstage but I think the 3,5 meter muo fairing adapter should include a decoupler to save on part count. And addition node would be required however. The 2 screenshots are what I mean. That all is assuming you can have a decoupler and fairing on one part and can stage separately. Knowing this mod there is probably a reason for this but feedback is feedback no matter if I am wrong or right. 

This is how it is supposed to be used if I am not mistaken. 3.5 meter adaper attached to 1.85 inon decoupler. 

This is what I was thinking. It makes it simpler but would require a decoupler so that the inon decoupler is not required for this build. As said above I am uncertain if its possible to have a decoupler and fairing in seperate stages on same part. I am using part clipping. Just want to give a visual idea of what I mean. 

[CobaltWolf]

Just now, dave1904 said:

That all is assuming you can have a decoupler and fairing on one part and can stage separately.

As said above I am uncertain if its possible to have a decoupler and fairing in seperate stages on same part.

Yup, exactly - you can only have one staging icon per part. Granted, I'm not sure there are many situations where those parts are getting used where you wouldn't want to stage the fairing and decoupler essentially simultaneously... in any case, I figured it helped by giving us the truss-style interstage for use with other encapsulated Centaurs

[dave1904]

2 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Yup, exactly - you can only have one staging icon per part. Granted, I'm not sure there are many situations where those parts are getting used where you wouldn't want to stage the fairing and decoupler essentially simultaneously... in any case, I figured it helped by giving us the truss-style interstage for use with other encapsulated Centaurs

I knew it..... There is always a logical reason in BDB. 

[CobaltWolf]

Just now, dave1904 said:

I knew it..... There is always a logical reason in BDB. 

Glad you have so much more faith in us than I do... if you notice anything sticking out, please don't hesitate to bring it up

[dave1904]

5 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Glad you have so much more faith in us than I do... if you notice anything sticking out, please don't hesitate to bring it up

Those ridges or whatever you call them on the lower part of the atlas 400 series fairing would be a cool addition but seem impossible by the way fairing textures work in ksp. That is really all I personally can think of that is sticking out.  Again its more likely a limitation of the game because I am 100% certain you did not forget the iconic fairings of the atlas 400 series. 

BTW. Anyone know the point of those ridges in real life? 

 

[DJ Reonic]

29 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

Those ridges or whatever you call them on the lower part of the atlas 400 series fairing would be a cool addition but seem impossible by the way fairing textures work in ksp. That is really all I personally can think of that is sticking out.  Again its more likely a limitation of the game because I am 100% certain you did not forget the iconic fairings of the atlas 400 series. 

BTW. Anyone know the point of those ridges in real life? 

 

*snip*

If I'm not mistaken, those kinds of things are usually airflow related.

[Pappystein]

18 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

Those ridges or whatever you call them on the lower part of the atlas 400 series fairing would be a cool addition but seem impossible by the way fairing textures work in ksp. That is really all I personally can think of that is sticking out.  Again its more likely a limitation of the game because I am 100% certain you did not forget the iconic fairings of the atlas 400 series. 

BTW. Anyone know the point of those ridges in real life? 

 

 

Those ridges are sort of a form of corrugation (like your typical cardboard Box.)   In this case they are called stringers (or alternatively ribs) and they help to distribute the loads on the fairing so the actual PLF skin can be thinner.   By adding these stringers (as well as other structural parts INSIDE the fairing) they are making the PLF a SEMI-monocoque device.  This is similar to how almost all aircraft are built.   Except in the case of most modern aircraft, it is under the skin that the stringers etc are attached.  

 

The only true monocoque rocket parts are the tank stacks (and only the tanks) for the True Atlas (aka NOT Atlas V,) Agena [B/D/Ascent NOT A] Centaur and Convair's Vega stages (not to be confused with the lets re-use a rocket name Vega from ESA) yeah sure Vega never went into production and it isn't well known today... I am just having fun.. while I am here sick....  Stupid sinus infections! 

I am un-aware of any FLOWN or PROPOSED rockets aside from these where the tanks or the whole structure (Atlas) is true monocoque.   BlueStreak is ALMOST a true monocoque but the bottom half of the tanks are covered in stringers (both larger yet similar to on that PLF fairing picture)  thus it is excluded.    If BlueStreak didn't have those stringers not only would it be a true monocoque structure, it would also be considered to be a full Bossart Balloon tank design.  

 

TO BE CLEAR...  any sealed tank with nothing else on it can be considered monocoque.   However when you start hanging stuff on the ends of the tank you invariably add structural pieces to "hold it all together"  This makes most rockets semi-monocoque.   Agena B/D/Ascent, Atlas, Centaur and Vega (if it had ever been built) had zero stringers between the tanks.  Literally it was just the same thickness of skin welded into a ring between the tanks on these stages.    Or in the case of Vega and Centaur the tanks themselves were directly attached together via a common bulkhead for better or worse.

I have structural diagrams for Agena (including some of the Big Agenas proposed over the years)   at the 1.5m (BDB defaults to KSP scale 0.9375m) size, only the Agena A is not fully monocoque.  It has structural parts under the skin between the tanks.   None of the Agena had balloon tanks although the skins got thin enough that Agena D and Ascent Agena are CLOSE to balloon tanks (IE they will stay intact when not pressurized but like a pop can that is open and empty... they are easy to damage.   The same can not be said about Centaur or Atlas (or likely even Vega)

 

I hope this clears your question up and dose not muddy the water at all (I know it has the potential to.)

 

[MuriloMoreira]

Is this mod compatible with the reflection plugin?

[dave1904]

1 minute ago, Pappystein said:

Those ridges are sort of a form of corrugation (like your typical cardboard Box.)   In this case they are called stringers (or alternatively ribs) and they help to distribute the loads on the fairing so the actual PLF skin can be thinner.   By adding these stringers (as well as other structural parts INSIDE the fairing) they are making the PLF a SEMI-monocoque device.  This is similar to how almost all aircraft are built.   Except in the case of most modern aircraft, it is under the skin that the stringers etc are attached.  

 

The only true monocoque rocket parts are the tank stacks (and only the tanks) for the True Atlas (aka NOT Atlas V,) Agena [B/D/Ascent NOT A] Centaur and Convair's Vega stages (not to be confused with the lets re-use a rocket name Vega from ESA) yeah sure Vega never went into production and it isn't well known today... I am just having fun.. while I am here sick....  Stupid sinus infections! 

I am un-aware of any FLOWN or PROPOSED rockets aside from these where the tanks or the whole structure (Atlas) is true monocoque.   BlueStreak is ALMOST a true monocoque but the bottom half of the tanks are covered in stringers (both larger yet similar to on that PLF fairing picture)  thus it is excluded.    If BlueStreak didn't have those stringers not only would it be a true monocoque structure, it would also be considered to be a full Bossart Balloon tank design.  

 

TO BE CLEAR...  any sealed tank with nothing else on it can be considered monocoque.   However when you start hanging stuff on the ends of the tank you invariably add structural pieces to "hold it all together"  This makes most rockets semi-monocoque.   Agena B/D/Ascent, Atlas, Centaur and Vega (if it had ever been built) had zero stringers between the tanks.  Literally it was just the same thickness of skin welded into a ring between the tanks on these stages.    Or in the case of Vega and Centaur the tanks themselves were directly attached together via a common bulkhead for better or worse.

I have structural diagrams for Agena (including some of the Big Agenas proposed over the years)   at the 1.5m (BDB defaults to KSP scale 0.9375m) size, only the Agena A is not fully monocoque.  It has structural parts under the skin between the tanks.   None of the Agena had balloon tanks although the skins got thin enough that Agena D and Ascent Agena are CLOSE to balloon tanks (IE they will stay intact when not pressurized but like a pop can that is open and empty... they are easy to damage.   The same can not be said about Centaur or Atlas (or likely even Vega)

 

I hope this clears your question up and dose not muddy the water at all (I know it has the potential to.)

 

So its fundamentally to save mass if I understand correctly? Had no idea they went to all the effort to reduce mass on the fairings. No wonder they are so expensive.

[Zorg]

2 minutes ago, MuriloMoreira said:

Is this mod compatible with the reflection plugin?

There are no official configs for Textures Unlimited. But there are some rough unofficial configs covering a few parts which you may be able to find if you search this thread.

[CDSlice]

The Titan is fast becoming my favorite rocket in BDB

It just looks so pretty and is perfect for sending probes to further away planets like Dres.

More screenshots in spoiler for space

Spoiler

The payload arriving at Dres. It is mostly made up of Restock/Near Future parts with a liberal use of tweakscale but I also used a bunch of BDB science experiments

And the smol robotic lander on the surface. The parts from Near Future Exploration were perfect for this little guy.

 

 

[Darkherring]

Does BDB support Cryo Tanks mod in any way? As those use totally boiloff mechanics, and I wonder if it can somehow merge to have similar experience with both BDB and cryo tanks

EDIT: I've found answer in previous posts

Edited January 31, 2020 by Darkherring

[biohazard15]

1 hour ago, CDSlice said:

The Titan is fast becoming my favorite rocket in BDB

That is actually a "problem" with BDB Titan - it's so flexible it makes all other rockets either irrelevant or obsolete. I actually had to force myself to use Delta II to launch anything that weighs less than 2 tons and can be folded into 1.5m fairing. Just because "launch everything on Titan" is too boring. BDB Titan is great, but I wish for more balancing. Increasing its price would work, at least until you accumulated enough kerbucks to stop caring about such things.

[CDSlice]

17 minutes ago, biohazard15 said:

That is actually a "problem" with BDB Titan - it's so flexible it makes all other rockets either irrelevant or obsolete. I actually had to force myself to use Delta II to launch anything that weighs less than 2 tons and can be folded into 1.5m fairing. Just because "launch everything on Titan" is too boring. BDB Titan is great, but I wish for more balancing. Increasing its price would work, at least until you accumulated enough kerbucks to stop caring about such things.

Well, I don't have that problem because I love the Delta II even more. There is just something about that shade of blue and the general shape of the rocket I find incredibly beautiful. I just wish there was an easier way to attach the 9 SRBs since KSP makes that a pain.

[Invaderchaos]

1 hour ago, CDSlice said:

Well, I don't have that problem because I love the Delta II even more. There is just something about that shade of blue and the general shape of the rocket I find incredibly beautiful. I just wish there was an easier way to attach the 9 SRBs since KSP makes that a pain.

I know, right? That is one of my favorite colors, on one of my favorite rockets. As for the x9 symmetry, in normal ksp I normally just do three different x3 SRB's and try to line them up the best I can, but I'm pretty sure this mod allows you to get x9 symmetry.

[Pappystein]

4 hours ago, Invaderchaos said:

I know, right? That is one of my favorite colors, on one of my favorite rockets. As for the x9 symmetry, in normal ksp I normally just do three different x3 SRB's and try to line them up the best I can, but I'm pretty sure this mod allows you to get x9 symmetry.

Editor extensions DOES allow you to do the 9x symmetry however ( at least in previous versions of KSP I haven't flown it in a while) I had some "issues" shall we say when trying to set up two separate boost phases (like IRL Delta-9s)

If you want them to all decouple at once... It works.   If you want them to all burn at once... It works.  If you want them to Burn some then burn some more then jettison (like real life) then it became almost too much work.   So I too started the 3x3x3 symmetry mentioned by Invaderchaos.  PS Shift Key is your friend when doing that by hand.

and I would state again I have not played with this since KSP built in the "un-Symetery" button.

9 hours ago, dave1904 said:

So its fundamentally to save mass if I understand correctly? Had no idea they went to all the effort to reduce mass on the fairings. No wonder they are so expensive.

While it is a method of saving mass...  It is almost MORE about making the PLF frangible (it breaks easily into small fragments)   After all you wouldn't want an intact one of these falling on your home/boat whatever.   So by making the PLF LIGHT they also make it fragile under the right circumstance (Opened) yet rigid and strong enough to withstand the forces of launch when properly assembled.   My favorite engineering class took a week (two class periods) looking at these... mostly on the WHY do they make it that way, questions.  On some PLFs, we were told, being less than a 16th of an inch (less than 2 millimeters) out of alignment would cause the whole structure to collapse under flight loading.    Talk about a house of cards.

*EDIT* Crossed out the dimensions as I remember the Professor saying "much less than"   So probably on the order of a 64th of an inch or more than a few angstroms.

Edited February 1, 2020 by Pappystein

[Pappystein]

So playing around in Sandbox a moment.  Discovered there is no way to resupply the Dorian with Film Stock.   Can we have that enabled on either the MOL Pressurized Cargo container or the Ferry Container?

 

While the basic MOL concept was a disposable manned Satellite, I can see the film Cassette as being something that can be "Swapped out" in flight... Had they actually gotten far enough in the design process.   Yes it evolved into the station we all know and love but currently the Camera configs do not allow it to be a station...   Just a manned satellite that is intended to be de-orbited as soon as you are done with the film.

 

FOLLOWUP.  An idea (that might be good)   Remove the film from Dorian and add it to a duplicated Lab that requires 2 Kerbals to operate and only provides the film for Dorian....    IDK.   It was an idea my feverish brain just threw at me (stupid Sinus infection!)

 

And sorry if these ideas seem disjointed.   I am blaming the meds!