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

[biohazard15]

4 hours ago, Zorg said:

Of course more switches will be coming soon and I'll add the straight eight fairing to the standard 1.5m base tomorrow as well. Theres also a couple of part icon issues in the editor which I haven't gotten to the bottom of yet.

Not only icons - parts themselves also has issues:

To resolve this, you need to switch fairing type. However, this reveals another problem - second fairing type starts opaque even if transparent is selected:

This can be resolved by switching it to opaque and back to transparent.

[blowfish]

6 minutes ago, biohazard15 said:

Not only icons - parts themselves also has issues:

To resolve this, you need to switch fairing type. However, this reveals another problem - second fairing type starts opaque even if transparent is selected:

This can be resolved by switching it to opaque and back to transparent.

Make sure you have the latest versions of B9PartSwitch and SimpleAdjustableFairings (less than 24 hours old as of this writing) - this depends on both of them.

[Pappystein]

18 minutes ago, blowfish said:

Make sure you have the latest versions of B9PartSwitch and SimpleAdjustableFairings (less than 24 hours old as of this writing) - this depends on both of them.

To add on to blowfish's  statement, I would also DELETE the modulemanager cache files in your GameData directory.   Basically any file that says modulemanger and does not end in .dll (you don't want to delete THAT ONE!  )

I just loaded the current Dev build including the dependancies blowfish mentions above, and KSP hung on save load.  killed KSP, Deleted those files and re-loaded and now I am in game trying to fly the Darn Saturn INT-16 again!

 

So delete:

modulemanager.ConfigCache

ModuleManager.ConfigSHA

ModuleManager.Physics

ModuleManager.TechTree

 

 

[blowfish]

9 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

I just loaded the current Dev build including the dependancies blowfish mentions above, and KSP hung on save load.  killed KSP, Deleted those files and re-loaded and now I am in game trying to fly the Darn Saturn INT-16 again!

Having done a lot of work on MM, I would be interested in knowing what was going on (although all the possible evidence is gone now).  Deleting the cache files, while mostly harmless, isn't going to solve problems in general.

[biohazard15]

20 minutes ago, blowfish said:

Make sure you have the latest versions of B9PartSwitch and SimpleAdjustableFairings (less than 24 hours old as of this writing) - this depends on both of them.

I just did, and I do.

38 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

To add on to blowfish's  statement, I would also DELETE the modulemanager cache files in your GameData directory.

Tried that, didn't help.

[Pappystein]

So Jeb sort of proved me wrong....  I switched payloads from 1500units of Ore to an all up Apollo blk2 on an SLA (with a unique payload) and Launched.   Ran out of delta V with approximately 350m/s still needed at the end of the flight (250km goal but 200 actual intend.)    But the fully fueled Apollo SM had PLENTY of fuel to spare even with the payload attached.   I will be updating this post with those photos in a few minutes.   But I went into my PDF archive (specifically 19720007150 from the NASA NTRS server entitled SRM Performance upgrade and found the UA120x configs for The Various Saturn I INT-16 proposals.

  Here is my favorite:

Yes that is 5x UA1208 Surrounding 2x more UA1208s!     As you can see the Inline SRMs only have 1 TVC tank a piece. 

 

Also some comments (that I promised in my last INT-16 post) on the UA120x SRM family.

Spoiler

There are 4 distinct generations of UA120x SRMs,   I am going to designated them as Blk x along the line of many other space programs (Apollo anyone?!) 

The First generation, or the Blk 1  had the HUGE TVC tank and the round "blow out" panels on the Nosecones (as in BDB)  These were the only "Man Rated" UA120x SRMs and are exclusively UA1205s.   These were hand made to individual launch needs.   This individualized construction allowed the engineers to maintain G-Loading at acceptable levels (and this was the prime reason for hand building the individual SRMs for each launch.)   An Inline Blk1 would have had 2x TVC tanks

The Second generation, the Blk 2;  Between upgrades to the Liquid Injection TVC, and wanting to reduce the cost of satellite launches the USAF and the Chemical Systems Division of United Aircraft, updated the UA120xs with a new "assembly line" segments that are all identical and eliminated the huge TVC tank in favor of a smaller tank.  This is the model that is actually in Game for all of the UA120x SRMs.    An Inline Blk2 (we will call it) would have had either 1 or 2 TVC tanks.   It is the fact that BDB has 2 TVC tanks that is causing some of the fitment problems in the INT-16 pictures I have been showing.  

 

There was a proposed  3rd Generation UA120x that was never built.  This is where the UA1208 actually comes from.   It was intended to be the SRM for several of the Shuttle proposals (in a 4x or 6x configuration!)    Various changes were mentioned in several studies including a change to the structure of the Segment joints (not associated with their O-rings so still have the bad O-ring design that would cause the failure of a Titan 34D and... you know Challenger with it's RSRMs.)     And according to one document a possible replacement for the open Loop Liquid Injection TVC with a closed loop Hydraulic TVC (where most of the Hydraulic fluid stays in the rocket!)   This would greatly reduce the need for external TVC tanks.

 

Lastly, Much of the 3rd Generation was again proposed (with a new O-ring Design) for the 4th generation or Blk4  This one would decidedly use the "Flex Roll" TVC system, and a new clevice and pin joint to reduce man hours on assembly.   The Blk4 was basically a "last gasp" to disuade the USAF from the competing SRMU. 

 

*UPDATES WITH PHOTOS BELOW!*

Ok so This is actually a composit of 2 launches.   I went to get a snack during launch... you know trusting Mechjeb to fly this rocket.... and well.....  

As you can see by the plumes... the J-2 and the Separation motors are all running.  The PLA is actually 3 stages later (one of which was jettison the Escape tower you see to the right and slightly above the Saturn S-IVB stage.

Stupid Mechjeb... Abort re-launch:

Spoiler

Here were are on the pad with all the data showing:

And a couple photographs from the launch site:

 

Config of the outer 4 SRMs for max 3G flight experience!:

yea all 4 are at 70% max thrust (AKA they were hand made like the Blk1 up above in my info on the UA120x family!

Change in the S-IVB stage to Central UA1205 seems to have helped UA1205 separation

So ends the last good picture on the first flight (remaining pictures are from 2nd flight with Mechjeb forced to stop at this point!

Good picture of Escape Tower Seperation:

As you can probably see, we are going to run out of S-IVB stage fuel before we reach full orbit.....

Lets hope the Apollo SM has enough fuel and d/v to get us circularized (at about 200km x 200km)

Payload separation...

Why yes that is the Skylab Telescope floating away... I had to modify it slightly due to SLA fitment (the RCS blocks poked through the SLA if they were in their correct position!)

Burning for a 190x190km Orbit (I took too long catching the Skylab scope to make 200km as an initial orbit!)

Orbit achieved on a  Saturn I INT-16 with 5x UA1205 SRMs!

And requisite gratuitous artzy shots!

 

 

==================================================================

So, @Friznit  Do you consider this a Success?  

Anyone else like to comment?    I believe some of the issues with this are related to the INT-16 never having a real "Solid" Engineering plan on it.  And changing payloads changes D/V   I know the UA1206 and UA1207 were also mooted as Clusters for 1st Stage Saturn I replacement so......

Edited April 1, 2020 by Pappystein

[Pappystein]

2 hours ago, biohazard15 said:

To resolve this, you need to switch fairing type. However, this reveals another problem - second fairing type starts opaque even if transparent is selected:  This can be resolved by switching it to opaque and back to transparent.

Sadly I can confirm this.  Even after everything I get this with the following fairings:

• Delta P/K 1.5m (1.875m is ok!)
• Agena SOT fairing

Dev build from about 4 hours ago

 

[blowfish]

These modules are proving rather complicated to get working together.  Do report issues but please be patient with them.

[biohazard15]

3 hours ago, Pappystein said:

As you can see by the plumes... the J-2 and the Separation motors are all running.  The PLA is actually 3 stages later (one of which was jettison the Escape tower you see to the right and slightly above the Saturn S-IVB stage.

Stupid Mechjeb... Abort re-launch:

Never, ever, EVER use autostage.

[biohazard15]

@PART[bluedog_Agena_MultiPayloadAdapter]:AFTER[Bluedog_DB]
{
  @node_stack_bottom = 0.0, 0.29838, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 1
}

@PART[bluedog_Agena_StandardFairingBase]:AFTER[Bluedog_DB]
{
  node_stack_MPA = 0.0, 0.921487, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0
}

@PART[bluedog_Agena_SAC]:AFTER[Bluedog_DB]
{
  node_stack_MPA = 0.0, 0.921487, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0
}

Made Agena multiple payload adapter work as intended. Basically this copies KNES Ariane 5 MPA (which I mentioned on previous page). Use new node on fairing base as visual aid. Can be properly attached only to Agena standard fairing base (both stock and SAF).

Interesting note: technically, film bucket does not need decoupler thanks to a build-in one (in the chute). However, its force is so small (1.0) that it can't push the bucket properly, and it bumps into Agena (or vice versa, IDK). Proper separation (and nice looks) can be achieved with 0.3125m PSM.

[Zorg]

The new v1.10.1 release of SAF should hopefully fix most of the fairing issues. I'll need to do some config work to fix the part icons.

 

Get it here or from the BDB bundle.

Edited April 1, 2020 by Zorg

[biohazard15]

1 hour ago, Zorg said:

The new v1.10.1 release of SAF should hopefully fix most of the fairing issues. I'll need to do some config work to fix the part icons.

I can confirm that issues I've reported are seemingly gone.

 

Totally unintended, but quite useful side effect: Build your own Burner stage! Now with jettisonable Star 37 and a lot of walls to add your own stuff!

Had to re-add original bottom node (non-decoupling) in order to interface it with 0.9735m decouplers or interstages. Nimbus decoupler looks best on it. You can add Star 48:

Or Orbus 6:

Or a full-size IUS, because what IUS always lacked is a third stage: (This uses Agena structural skirt and generic 0.9375 decoupler)

Or a nice mount for Delta-K:

[Zorg]

40 minutes ago, biohazard15 said:

because what IUS always lacked is a third stage

The best 3rd (and indeed 4th) stage for an IUS is another Orbus 21

[Pappystein]

3 hours ago, Zorg said:

The best 3rd (and indeed 4th) stage for an IUS is another Orbus 21

 

Er, um,  I think you meant 17 of them!

9 hours ago, biohazard15 said:

Never, ever, EVER use autostage.

(in the voice of Hammy the Squirrel talking about the cookie) but I like the Autostage!

yeah, you are not wrong. But if you just remember what things (Long spool up engines being the prime example [AND NO I DON'T WANT EM CHANGED!]) you can block Mechjeb from doing stupid.    I just made the mistake of setting the Escape tower a seperate stage (should have launched WITH J-2 ignition)  And then Mechjeb started looking for MOAR things to activate.

 

===================================================================

and unrelated to the above, thank-you again to blowfish and Zorg for their quick turn-around when bug between SLA and BDB was confirmed!

 

[Zorg]

7 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

and unrelated to the above, thank-you again to blowfish and Zorg for their quick turn-around when bug between SLA and BDB was confirmed!

All thanks go to Blowfish, he's done an incredible job basically reworking the whole plugin to suite our arcane purposes in a matter of weeks.

[Pappystein]

1 minute ago, Zorg said:

All thanks go to Blowfish, he's done an incredible job basically reworking the whole plugin to suite our arcane purposes in a matter of weeks.

And you for the hours of HARD WORK you weren't expecting when you took this project on though so yeah, I thank both of you!

 

[Zorg]

No new fairings models today per se but I've pushed a fix for the part icons as well as some minor texture fixes. Also additional fairing switches have been implemented. This is just the beginning of course.

The 1.5m standard base, the Delta P/K 1.5m miniskirt, the Delta 1.875m skirt, the SOT Agena 1.875m skirt and the 1.875m standard base all now have a B9 switch. Make sure your B9 and SAF are up to date as mentioned earlier.

The Delta 1000 fairing has also been added to the 1.5m Carrack straight adapter although this one wont switch to the Delta II one. I think it will be more appropriate to make a dedicated fairing for the 2.1m Carrack adapter part (which is now on the roadmap along with Athena and Minotaur fairings).

 

 

 

 

 

[biohazard15]

9 hours ago, Zorg said:

The best 3rd (and indeed 4th) stage for an IUS is another Orbus 21

That got me thinking. And building.

The plan calls for on-orbit assembly. This most likely means two Shuttle launches - "STS-1" with two Orbus-21s (lower part), and "STS-2" with two remaining Orbus-21s (upper part) and payload. In theory, STS-1 payload could be launched on Titan-IV (or 34D) and then intercepted by STS-2, GATV-style.

First, let's build STS-2 half:

I use Titan II nose cone with lead ballast, with 88 units of lead it gives 1318 kg launch mass - a good estimate for an interplanetary probe with a small monoprop or ion engine. As you can see, two Orbus-21s give it 2969 m/s of dV - not something extraordinary, but respectable. I used Mk2 docking port from Mk2Expansion as interface between two halves.

Now, the second half (STS-1):

1153 m/s, 4122 m/s total. That's all what you get for doubling the amount of Orbus-21s. Will it justify another launch? For me, probably not.

Maybe if we remove lead ballast from ex-warhead? This gives us a 319 kg launch mass (compare that with 370-kg Ulysses):

5736 m/s total, with 4441 m/s in STS-2 and 1295 m/s in STS-1.

Now let's try the "light" variant - Orbus-6 + three Orbus-21s. No screenshots, only the numbers.

1318 kg: 3701 m/s, with 2292 m/s in STS-2 and 1409 m/s in STS-1

319 kg: 5480 m/s, with 3850 m/s in STS-2 and 1630 m/s in STS-1

For comparison, here's Centaur-T with two RL-10A4s: 1318 kg - 4391 m/s max, 319 kg - 5810 m/s max. Actual numbers will likely be lower due to boiloff.

 

To conclude: there may be missions that call for such setups. For example, IUS (and solid motors in general) are exceptionally good when used as orbit insertion motors for ion-powered probes (namely on Moho). But if extra dV on Kerbin escape is all what you're looking for, better get a Centaur.

[Pappystein]

1 hour ago, biohazard15 said:

That got me thinking. And building.

Thanks for doing all the work on that!   Now we know likely why the 3 and 4 stage IUS never actually flew....  

However I am curious what a Centaur to boost Out and  a 3 or 4 banger of the IUS to capture burn and then circularize around another planet would look like.....  makes the mind wonder!

[Pappystein]

So I was doing a bit of research tonight for the Saturn INT-27.  It is the Big-Boi version of the INT-16.   Instead of UA120x SRMs it would use one of the (never specified) 156" SRMs.    Well when I realized that the CTD-156 (that would be the bigger version of the UA120x) would not likely have won any contracts, I started looking at Lockheed Propulsion Systems, who was in the news in the last few years about a lawsuit vs EPA.     And I found this "e-book" online.  Apparently if you have a google account you can view it for free:

https://books.google.com/books?id=6aQpAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA18&lpg=RA1-PA18&dq=Thiokol156+inch+Solid+Rocket+Motor&source=bl&ots=HeHxbmadk8&sig=ACfU3U1QWVLRxrQxbwv441EwuXDRv1ZZnA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjr7p_i9sjoAhUIH80KHaWgAvkQ6AEwAXoECAwQKw#v=onepage&q=Thiokol156 inch Solid Rocket Motor&f=false

The Lockheed Rocket is a non-representative burn test.  They were testing the design of their segments with that burn (the Nozzle is not a fly-able nozzle)   It is harder to tell if the Thiokol Burn is a "test burn" or a "TVC test burn" because it is horizontal and much of the topside of the Nozzle is obscured by the flames and smoke.

 

The Reason I post it here (besides the views of a Thiokol and Lockheed test 156" SRM burns) is it has just about every sat Cobalt has made in the past few months in glorious.... 1964 details.    It even has a picture of an Astronaut entering the MOL rocket THROUGH THE LAB! in a mockup of a real launch!.

 

Lockheed Tested the following TVC options:

• Jet-tabs (like redstone!)
• Liquid Injection (Like the UA-120x SRM)
• Lock-Roll Open and Closed Loop Hydraulic actuators (later evolved into the FLEX-Seal proposed for Block 4 UA120x SRMs and actually used on the Space Shuttle SRM/RSRM and SRMU for Titan IVB)
• HOT-GAS Injection (I can not find a report on this but there was only one test burn where Liquid Injection had 3 as did Jet-Tabs

Thiokol did similar tests except they skipped the Jet-Tabs and Hot-Gas.

 

Edited April 2, 2020 by Pappystein

[biohazard15]

2 hours ago, Pappystein said:

And I found this "e-book" online.  Apparently if you have a google account you can view it for free:

Gotta love the "cover up" bits. "Bazooka-like weapon for close support". Well, technically they're not wrong...

[CobaltWolf]

7 hours ago, Pappystein said:

Lockheed Tested the following TVC options:

• Jet-tabs (like redstone!)

 

I believe Jet Vanes and Jet Tabs are different control schemes.

[Pappystein]

1 hour ago, CobaltWolf said:

I believe Jet Vanes and Jet Tabs are different control schemes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I learned yet something else new about Rockets!   It would appear, based on the engineering drawings I have seen,  the Lock-Roll, and latter (and universal) Flex-Roll joint is a combination of the middle two in the top row.   Lockheed Propulsion Company invented Lock-roll (or alternatively Lockroll) for the Poseidon C-3 Submarine launched Ballistic missile after less than ideal tests with the Polaris A-1 (TBC Polaris A-1 was perfectly safe... just not as accurate as they wanted.)   I would have to dig into my military history books to see (it is amazing about all the SUBMARINE ballistic missiles I have info on but not Land based ones!) but I think the Polaris A-3 (which was built AFTER development of the Poseidon was started) actually have this method of TVC as well.

Also, for those of you who wondered how the Titan UA120x SRMs TVCed... They are the "Side Injection" method in the bottom row.  The Tank on the side of the SRM is full of combustible fluid that is added at one of 3 (I think) points around the upper third of the Nozzle to change the thrust profile of the Rocket as a whole.

6 hours ago, biohazard15 said:

Gotta love the "cover up" bits. "Bazooka-like weapon for close support". Well, technically they're not wrong...

I didn't read that far.  I just perused the Aircraft (and cried over my next Semi Truck... photo I had never seen) and went looking for details on the 156" SRM study.   And I learned a-lot.  Including that TRW was looking into a PRESSURE FED LRB for Space Shuttle that would be fully recoverable!   The engine shown,  Is a fixed Pintle injection engine about the same aspect ratio of the much latter Merlin engines.    Actually they look like if you shrunk a Rocketdyne F-1 (excluding the extension skirt but including the huge aspirator) to fit the shape of the Merlin!   I just quickly scanned that document (I did not see the final configuration of their LRB proposal.)   But the drawing of their proposed engine was... rather eye catching.

I ended up downloading close to 20 different PDFs from NASA NTRS server on the subject of 156" SRM and the TRW LRB (and staying up until 3AM doing so!)    And while these documents are early documents/Studies for the Space Shuttle.  The Saturn MLV had the same thrust requirements for a 4x booster system so fully retro-applicable!  

So I know we are talking a long way away.  But  are we going to get to see a fully-Retro Falcon 9, set 40 years before Falcon 9 flew?    *I KID!* 

 

Edited April 2, 2020 by Pappystein

[MashAndBangers]

We interrupt this rocket talk with more rocket talk:

Would it possible to add a monoprop fueled engine module to the MOL-CB RCS block and it's siblings?  Mechjeb doesn't accurately burn at nodes with just RCS thrusters, meaning I have to manually get the rest of the way to a station or a target.

 

I'm using the @Well amazing X-20 mod, and I decided to just use monoprop.

[Pappystein]

41 minutes ago, MashAndBangers said:

We interrupt this rocket talk with more rocket talk:

Would it possible to add a monoprop fueled engine module to the MOL-CB RCS block and it's siblings?  Mechjeb doesn't accurately burn at nodes with just RCS thrusters, meaning I have to manually get the rest of the way to a station or a target.

 

I'm using the @Well amazing X-20 mod, and I decided to just use monoprop.

Um, I see your jet engines there!   Cheater!   *Quickly burns all photos of X-20s floating just beyond KSC or broken up in the mountains just short of KSC!*

 

That being said, what are you using for your upper docking node (or is that lower given the picture angle?)   Is that a Tweakscaled MOL 5x node?