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

[derega16]

Any chance for big apollo in any future revamp?

I think it replaced the whole front section (chute and docking port) with even bigger parachute and it seems like it use same fork and ring port as big G

http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=30294

Edited June 6, 2020 by derega16

[GoldForest]

1 hour ago, derega16 said:

Any chance for big apollo in any future revamp?

I think it replaced the whole front section (chute and docking port) with even bigger parachute and it seems like it use same fork and ring port as big G

http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=30294

Looks like it was designed for Sea Dragon or one of the bigger Nova's, so I doubt we'll get it as @CobaltWolf has said they have no desire to make any of the Nova's, not even the C-8 or Saturn Nova. I'm not speaking for them, I'm just going off past information as I recall it. 

Edited June 6, 2020 by GoldForest

[moguy16]

3 hours ago, Cheesecake said:

I have no problems with the new Gemini in JNSQ. What exactly isn`t working to you?

i was being dumb, i had recently converted from a 2.5x rescale of the stock system but forgot to delete the rescale and sigma mods, so the result was that i rescaled JNSQ by 2.5x

[derega16]

59 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Looks like it was designed for Sea Dragon or one of the bigger Nova's, so I doubt we'll get it as @CobaltWolf has said they have no desire to make any of the Nova's, not even the C-8 or Saturn Nova. I'm not speaking for them, I'm just going off past information as I recall it. 

I think it might fit on top of S-II nicely or even on S-IVb if the orbital module shape is changed to cylindrical instead of conical or possibly just fit on top of S-IVb without payload adapter

 

And finally I found how Saturn V-4X works I might try to tweakscaling some quad coupler

Edited June 6, 2020 by derega16

[GoldForest]

30 minutes ago, derega16 said:

I think it might fit on top of S-II nicely or even on S-IVb if the orbital module shape is changed to cylindrical instead of conical or possibly just fit on top of S-IVb without payload adapter

To fit that many people, it would be 3.125/3.75 for the CM and then the SM would probably be 5 - 6.25, so we would definitely need one of the Bigger Nova or the Sea Dragon for that CSM.

[derega16]

13 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

To fit that many people, it would be 3.125/3.75 for the CM and then the SM would probably be 5 - 6.25, so we would definitely need one of the Bigger Nova or the Sea Dragon for that CSM.

I think it won't need to be that big as a normal size apollo can cram up to 5 people, 4 more should fit in something with the same proportion as normal big-G extension which current BDB one can fit just 1 kerbal but semmingly it have a space for more, scale it up should be able to seat 4 kerbals. Also BDB S-II is already 5.625m you can just lauch it on int-21 or any 1.5 stage saturn-II I don't think this thing is intended to use beyond LEO anyways.

Edited June 6, 2020 by derega16

[GoldForest]

6 minutes ago, derega16 said:

I think it won't need to be that big as a normal size apollo can cram up to 5 people, 4 more should fit in something with the same proportion as normal big-G extension which current BDB one can fit just 1 kerbal but semmingly it have a space for more, scale it up should be able to seat 4 kerbals. Also BDB S-II is already 5.625m you can just lauch it on int-21 or any 1.5 stage saturn-II I don't think this thing is intended to use beyond LEO anyways.

I guarantee that if they made it, that would have gone to Mars, hence the large amount of people. More people, less insanity. 

[derega16]

12 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

I guarantee that if they made it, that would have gone to Mars, hence the large amount of people. More people, less insanity. 

I think it more like for enormous LEO space station like what advance big G supposed to do. Or if go to Mars it likely served as a crew ferry as the service module is too small for 9 people on such long duration flight unless it docked with another craft which have to be seperately launch any ways. You can just dock them in LEO if you want to go to mars with this.

Edited June 6, 2020 by derega16

[alberro+]

9 hours ago, Friznit said:

https://github.com/friznit/Unofficial-BDB-Wiki/issues/47#issuecomment-625355548

Not quite finished the guide yet but should get you going

Thanks! 

[golkaidakhaana]

I'm kind of absent-minded at the moment , but are the KH-9 parts still planned / in development ?

[MashAndBangers]

28 minutes ago, sslaptnhablhat said:

I'm kind of absent-minded at the moment , but are the KH-9 parts still planned / in development ?

Its development probably suffered from "OOH Shiny!"  syndrome.  It's where the developer loses focus on the current task and switches to a different task.  With Mod Development, "OOH Shiny!" is the primary way things get done.  Eventually Cobalt will "OOH Shiny!" back to the Hexagon.

Edited June 6, 2020 by MashAndBangers

[Guest]

Considering his latest iteration was anything but shiny, I doubt it.  

[CobaltWolf]

1 hour ago, sslaptnhablhat said:

I'm kind of absent-minded at the moment , but are the KH-9 parts still planned / in development ?

Yeah probably. I think I got distracted with sudden Mercury inspiration.

 

49 minutes ago, MashAndBangers said:

Its development probably suffered from "OOH Shiny!"  syndrome.  It's where the developer loses focus on the current task and switches to a different task.  With Mod Development, "OOH Shiny!" is the primary way things get done.  Eventually Cobalt will "OOH Shiny!" back to the Hexagon.

I feel attacked

 

37 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:

Considering his latest iteration was anything but shiny, I doubt it.  

Oof

 

EDIT:

11 hours ago, derega16 said:

Any chance for big apollo in any future revamp?

I think it replaced the whole front section (chute and docking port) with even bigger parachute and it seems like it use same fork and ring port as big G

http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=30294

Ahoy, mateys

 

Edited June 6, 2020 by CobaltWolf

[rcollier]

1 hour ago, CobaltWolf said:

Ahoy, mateys

Bobo: "Are we there yet? ... Are we there yet? ... Are we there yet? ... Are we..."

Mission Commander: "Uh-oh! Looks like we have a problem with the guidance computer. Bobo, come with me, I have a very important mission for you. I need you to steer the ship for us. Okay, buddy? Can you do that?"

[KeaKaka]

There's got to be a proposal for something like this somewhere...

[CobaltWolf]

1 hour ago, Mountain Parrot said:

There's got to be a proposal for something like this somewhere...

Would you believe...

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/titannot.html

Quote

For the early-1970s Mathematica economic analysis of the proposed space shuttle system, The Aerospace Corporation proposed a family of potential space shuttle alternative expendable launch vehicles. Since it was Aerospace Corporation, the USAF systems engineering contractor for missiles and space, the family was largely based on Titan. An interesting proposal for a medium payload launch system was the "Five Segment Solid Rocket Motor/Core 2" system. These would have used a suitably modified UTC-1205 five-segment motor from Titan 3C/3D/3E as a first stage topped by a Titan 3-series second stage. (A second TVC tank would have been added to provide enough fluid for 3-axis control.) Agena or Centaur or a Burner 2 type kick stage could have topped the vehicles.

The idea seemed to be to replace every Atlas variant in the national fleet with Titan based launchers. SRM/Core 2/Centaur would have flown from a rebuilt Cape Canaveral LC 36. SRM/Core 2/Agena D and, presumably Centaur too, would have flown from VAFB SLC 4W. An SRM/Core 2 with a Star 37 type kick stage would have been relatively cheap. An SRM/Core 2/Centaur would have outmatched all Atlas Centaurs up to the 1980-s Atlas G/Centaur D1AR series. Growth versions using 7-segment SRMs were, of course, possible.

This Titan-centric view of the future, of course, never materialized.

 

[derega16]

About Gemini, I really doubt that with KSP Aerodynamics winged Gemini is doable or not and anyone tried it yet?

 

I found some clip but it seems like it useable by sheer power of nose load of reaction wheels, closed one is one made from Fasa parts but the build is unclear

Edited June 7, 2020 by derega16

[KeaKaka]

3 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Would you believe...

 

Also, due to the Agena revamp, the Agena D no longer fits it's titan iiib adapter. Any advice?

Edited June 7, 2020 by Mountain Parrot

[CobaltWolf]

Just now, Mountain Parrot said:

Also, due to the Agena revamp, the Agena D no longer fits it's titan iiib adapter. Any advice?

The adapter is actually new, the  engine fits into the Titan avionics truss's open space. You'll have to find some other type of spacer for other configurations (if we don't have something else suitable that's a bit of an oversight)

7 minutes ago, derega16 said:

About Gemini, I really doubt that with KSP Aerodynamics winged Gemini is doable or not and anyone tried it yet?

I recently learned that the "winged gemini" would actually still detach the wings and land via parachute? And that's just kinda... dumb?

[alberro+]

1 hour ago, CobaltWolf said:

I recently learned that the "winged gemini" would actually still detach the wings and land via parachute? And that's just kinda... dumb?

It's like a shuttle, but if you literally threw everything that made it a shuttle away.

[AlphaMensae]

Revised the Thor/Delta Fallback Tower to have the simple (very simple) droop-style umbilicals I had just come up with.

 

[biohazard15]

3 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

The adapter is actually new, the  engine fits into the Titan avionics truss's open space. You'll have to find some other type of spacer for other configurations (if we don't have something else suitable that's a bit of an oversight)

I usually pull a 23F and use Centaur interstage. Note that it wouldn't hurt to have a shorter-than-standard version in the upcoming revamp.

6 hours ago, Mountain Parrot said:

There's got to be a proposal for something like this somewhere...

Note that it would be quite challenging to man-rate SRM/Core2, if possible at all.

[JoeSheridan]

7 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

8 hours ago, Mountain Parrot said:

There's got to be a proposal for something like this somewhere...

Would you believe...

I think in the first 30-40 years of the space age there was a proposal for nearly every crazy configuration we could think of..... so it doesn´t surprises me that they did this too  THIS is one of the things i love in this time of space age. -> They had an idea and it wasn´t really important how well it looked like in the first place: They analyzed it to at least some degree.

and @CobaltWolf if you would instead just do newer vehicles there wouldn´t be nearly as much to do.... and we wouldn´t have this extremely large possibility to do it KERBAL as we have it with the mod. Just because the Real Guys did it in a kerbal way for a lot of proposals.

5 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

And that's just kinda... dumb?

oh yeah it IS dump..... but it think they would have changed that part it if would have gone to a contractor to be included in the spacecraft.

 

3 hours ago, AlphaMensae said:

Revised the Thor/Delta Fallback Tower to have the simple (very simple) droop-style umbilicals I had just come up with

they are simple but i think it´s a nice looking tower. And i think the tech was just that simple in that time and for KSP it looks very good

 

1 hour ago, biohazard15 said:

Note that it would be quite challenging to man-rate SRM/Core2, if possible at all.

yeah i think so too. And that idea reminds me of the Ares I... nice idea but: WHO thought it would be a good idea to use that LV for CREWED Vehicles?? For unmanned launches it looks like a nice and cheap way into space but with a crew..... i think there should be solids only as boosters and this only if it doesn´t works without.

Edited June 7, 2020 by JoeSheridan

[biohazard15]

So, that thermal patch... it didn't change much. Delta-class solids do show a mild overheat (tried on 3910). UA120s don't. LF engines don't. Any guidance on testing?

[MashAndBangers]

9 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

And that's just kinda... dumb?

Do we know if the winged gemini assembly would have been a good enough lifting body for the weight for a soft landing?