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

Zorg · January 17, 2021

On 1/17/2021 at 8:15 AM, Laird said:

Don't know if it has been reported already (didn't see a specific report):

The Kane-11-FBL Docking Floodlight & Kane-11-LIB EVA Floodlight stooped working for me with the latest update. They neither emit light nor do the animations work for me currently.

(Game and mod up to date)

Expand

It looks like Squad ~~in their infinite wisdom~~ changed the how ModuleLight works in KSP 1.11 but didn't provide backwards compatibility nor implement it as a new module. They just changed how the existing module works straight up. Not tested all the lights yet but you can expect some if not all of them to not be functional in 1.11 until we update BDB for compatibility.

biohazard15 · January 17, 2021

Alouette 2 & Explorer 31 (Thor-Agena B, VAFB)

Reveal hidden contents

computercat04 · January 17, 2021

Does BDB support WaterfallFX?

Zorg · January 17, 2021

On 1/17/2021 at 5:29 PM, computercat04 said:

Does BDB support WaterfallFX?

Expand

Not really (yet). There is an experimental branch on github with configs in a very early stage. Too early for users to try it imo but if you wanted to you could grab the Waterfall AND Realplume compatibility folder and bring it into your main github master install.

biohazard15 · January 17, 2021

On 1/17/2021 at 7:12 PM, Zorg said:

Not really (yet). There is an experimental branch on github with configs in a very early stage. Too early for users to try it imo but if you wanted to you could grab the Waterfall AND Realplume compatibility folder and bring it into your main github master install.

Expand

I think I've already said this, but: I hope that Waterfall support does not mean the end of RealPlume support. Personally, I don't like Waterfall at all, and I'd like to get RealPlume configs for all the new stuff.

Pappystein · January 17, 2021

On 1/17/2021 at 7:57 AM, KeaKaka said:

Damn I love reading these walls of text.

Expand

If it is something you like I am glad to provide. If you have an alternative suggestion for how I should post I will gladly look into any constructive suggestions. This is part of my way of giving back to the community if you will. Sadly it is hard to justify injecting pictures into the document as the wall of text becomes too big to be a READABLE post. And while pictures may = a thousand words. Pictures can only SHOW history, they can't tell you what was actually going on....

My next post of the like will be at-least a couple days away as there is a lot of editing (the document is already split into 6 posts!)

I am indeed covering all the standard sized Titans. HOPEFULLY the post will clear up a LOT of confusion that exists on the Titan Family. It will also point out some "standard" parts that are still missing from Titan in BDB. Some we can kit-bash, or has easy substitutions, others, not so much. I may later cover LDC but there is much less "engineering" documentation on LDC and more "marketing" documentation which is risking quoting a lot of incorrect data.

debaker02 · January 17, 2021

On 1/17/2021 at 10:13 PM, Pappystein said:

If it is something you like I am glad to provide. If you have an alternative suggestion for how I should post....

Expand

I enjoy these. If you are worried about length you could put the post a spoiler type window. In either case the stuff is fun to read.

Pappystein · January 18, 2021

The Mighty Titan. The Rocket family that put the US on the path to the moon… but was really the best launch vehicle for large objects in space. Until It wasn’t.

This will be a series of articles covering the entire Titan family, flown and in cases we have good data, un-flown variants. Now as the Titan family is partially shadowed in secrecy due to it’s work as a Nuclear missile and as a launch platform for NRO satellites, sometimes I will have to use conjecture to describe certain rockets. This conjecture is based in interconnected facts even if the conjecture itself is a guess. I am not the first person who has summarized the Titan family and I won’t be the last. One of my sources is the SpaceLaunchReport.com website by Ed Kyle. While I do not rely on his research and summation, It is a good starting place for people interested in Titan, Atlas, Thor/Delta Launch vehicles.

But first here is a link to the previous post in this series:

The Titan Missile; Genesis from a backup to the long arm of SAC

Reveal hidden contents

Early in the USAF’s attempts to build an ICBM, they hired Ramo-Wooldridge corporation to investigate and study the then current plans for the USAF’s intercontinental ballistic missiles as well as to help the USAF bring said missile into service. One of the first things that the Ramo-Wooldridge corporation discussed with the USAF was that they were putting all their eggs in a presently “untested” Balloon tank weapon system. The Atlas B-65 (latter SM-65). If this “pressurized” rocket failed to stay together, as the engineers at the corporation surmised, then the USAF would be without a nuclear Deterrent other than the Strategic Bombers the USAF was trying to replace/reduce. This caused the USAF to decide to order a “conservative” belt and braces backup program. While the star effort was still with Consolidated Vultee aka Convair and shortly latter General Dynamics, and their Atlas missile, the USAF would not be caught with a lemon if they ordered an alternative that did not use any of the advanced technologies that were suspect… Those being the stage and a half design as well as the Balloon Tanks. Instead, the new Missile, ordered from the Glenn L Martin company, would be built with a conservative structure, with individual internal tanks with no conjoined bulkheads. Due to it’s larger mass, it would require two stages to match the performance of the Atlas… but the extra complication and cost was considered a fair trade-off vs the risks of the balloon tank and stage and a half flight. The Glenn L Martin company was even instructed to design and build two full up rockets powered by two separate engine systems. So, if the main engine choice (the Aerojet General LR87) failed, there was the NAA-Rocketdyne E-1 to replace it with already designed missile components for the E-1.

Oh and if Ramo-Wooldridge corporation sounds familiar, it should. It was the predecessor to TRW or Thompson-Ramo-Wooldridge.

Now I have already covered the development of the E-1 engine and the fact that it was tested under a Glenn L Martin company Titan 1^st stage. The E-1 (and the associated S-4 upper stage engines) exist in this document only as a what if at this point. Neither engine was ever completely developed for the Titan I rocket, and as history will show, a smaller version of the S-4 would be used as the LR105 for the Atlas that preceded the Titan. But we should mention WHY the E-1 was started here. Early in the Titan design process Ramo-Wooldridge would step in again and state that they did not like the two separate engines being conjoined as a single dual bell engine as Aerojet was then proposing for the future LR87. Since they were closely co-located and interlinked the failure of one engine would result in the failure of the other, it was believed. The E-1 was a SINGLE engine that RW corp thought would be more reliable. When the E-1 test articles started exploding that theory was quickly changed. Aerojet General did have problems with the development of their AJ-23 family (what became the LR87 and LR91 in USAF use.) But those problems were small when compared to the E-1’s combustion chamber instability and explosions.

Now the Guidance system for the new Titan rocket would be the only state of the art portion of the entire rocket, well other than it’s payload which is an entirely different discussion. The Titan was designed to fly with a self-contained Inertial Guidance system. This is important because a self-contained system did not communicate with the outside world and therefor could not be jammed or interfered with. Due to the complexity of the system, not enough units could be made to equip both Titan and Atlas until well after the Titan I was canceled from service. In the interim, a Radio-Command Inertial system would be used on Titan I, since the Titan I was better protected in the silo than Atlas was in its armored ‘coffin.’ The Radio Command update Inertial system used on Titan I, was jammable, but a far less complex system than the self-contained system used on Atlas. The system utilized a combination of Radar measurements over the first 700 nautical miles of the missiles flight and Pulse Radio communications through the radar signal from launch to update the rocket on it’s initial performance including direction and speed, again, up to 700 nautical miles away from the Launch site. By the way that is just over 800 “standard” miles. This provided a weight savings on the Titan I and even thought it, in theory could be jammed if “Enemy Agents” were able to get close to the launch site… It was reliable enough for 1959. The self-contained Inertial system would be used on the Atlas E and F production standards instead of Titan I due to safety and security of the Atlas launch sites. The latter Titan II had an improved guidance system, that was less complicated than the proposed for Titan I/Atlas self-contained Inertial system. An Inertial system works by measuring several gyroscopes movement to determine the flight path, acceleration, and rate of pitch, roll and yaw of the rocket/missile. The system compares the data it expects to get with the data the gyroscopes are providing and makes adjustments to how the rocket flies based on these comparisons. The advantage of the self-contained Inertial system is more than one launch can happen at once at a missile base. The Radio control uplink was limited to a single missile at a time in the days of Titan I and significantly slowed the launch program at a missile base. In the case of Titan I, only one missile could be launched at a time and a 2^nd missile could begin fueling while one was being controlled by the Command network. This is just one of the many reasons Titan I had a short life.

70:17 Seventy test launches, including production standard Titan I missiles vs 17 launch failures. Like most early rockets, the Titan I rocket had a large string of failed or partially failed launches. With Titan I much of these seemed to have to do with Stage 2 separation. To keep the rocket as simple as possible the Martin company (after 1957 name change) decided to dispense with ullage motors to settle the propellants of the 2^nd Stage before and during stage separation, and instead light up the LR91 second stage engine as soon as the first stage was given thrust termination commands (but before the LR87 first stage engine had fully shut off.) This is called “fire in the hole” staging by NASA and others. This means that the LR87 powered first stage was still thrusting forward when the 2^nd stage started up and the stage separation explosive bolts were cut. To be clear Aerojet only started the 4x verniers that are external to the interstage when the MECO command was sent to the 1^st stage’s LR87 engine. Approximately seven seconds later the separation bolts would be fired, and a further 4 seconds after that the main combustion chamber would finally come online. There are three major and many minor problems resulted from this. First off as the LR91 was starting up the first stage may still be providing full thrust. That means the lower thrust 2^nd stage might not separate cleanly or may in fact be hit by the first stage immediately after stage separation. But it turns out there was an even bigger problem. Starting the LR91, verniers while the main bell was still in the enclosed space of the interstage could lead to an overpressure event that would damage the interstage before separation preventing said stage separation… or worse… the interstage structure would crumple around the LR91 engine destroying it through the nearly un-heard of Coandă effect. It is this reason why the Titan II has big open holes between the stages. One form of damage from this style of separation, was the Interstage blowing apart when the LR91’s main combustion chamber came online. Early in the full production standard Titan I rocket, blow out panels were added to the Interstage Structure to reduce or prevent this. Even with these blow out panels, or the specific chain of timed events through separation, the Titan I was less than ideally reliable at stage separation.

The Titan I would have serious attacks on the entire concept of the backup ICBM, no less than 3 times before the first all up rocket was even built. It took the “Sputnik crisis” of 1957 to “kick start” the Titan Program to that of a fully funded weapon system. Had the Soviet’s not successfully launched the Sputnik family of satellites… Titan might never have flown!

The Titan I in detail:

The First stage consists of a Kerosene, latter RP-1, and Liquid Oxygen tanks to fuel the Aerojet General AJ-23 (the LR87-AJ-3) The diameter is 3.05m which at KSP scale is approximately 1.952m. Rounded down to meet the 0.125 multiplier diameter of 1.875m.

The second stage is 2.3m which scales nicely to 1.5m. The second stage is KeroLOx fueled and powered by the Aerojet General LR91-AJ-3, also a member of the AJ-23 family. Both stages were designed for strength and simplicity, eliminating many features found on other then current rockets as un-needed or experimental. At the time of it’s design, the Glenn L Martin corporation had a reputation as producing products with conservative engineering that were always stronger than needed to be. This is a large part of why they were approached to make this rocket vs many other companies in the aeronautical world.

101 production Titan I missiles were made but only 54 (plus 6 spare) Titan Is were ever deployed to Launch Silos. The reason is twofold. First the Titan I had the sub-standard Command-Inertial guidance and with manual tracking only one missile could be launched at a time. This was because the manufacture of the fully self-contained Inertial guidance system could not make them fast enough, and the Atlas was the preferred launch vehicle to receive this due to it’s lower costs as well as the significantly lower standard of protection for the Atlas missiles. The second reason is that because by the time the 101 production Titans were built, the USAF had to redesign and rebuild the Titan Silos twice. Once due to a major design flaw in the elevator system, costing an all-up Titan Rocket in it’s failure. The second design of the silo was to handle the older Radio-Command Inertial guidance system “temporarily” installed on the Titan I. Each Missile silo complex of 9 missiles had a “hanger queen” fully functional Titan I rocket stored, with no fuel or warhead, in a nearby hanger, in case there was a major failure on one of the 9 missiles in a silo, but the silo itself was “ok.” So 60 total Titan I missiles were deployed to 6 sites with 9 armed and ready Missiles, and a 10^th that was a spare in everything except the warhead.

When it came time to build Satellite launchers, the expense of converting the Titan I was deemed too expensive as the entire control system would have to be replaced for “reliable” space launches of “optimal” flight attitude. This is because the Command/Inertial system was designed for what would be an optimal flight profile for longest distance traveled, not greatest altitude or efficient flight to an altitude. You know, the thing needed to get objects actually IN SPACE! Even so, assuming a new control system was installed, the as built truncated conic structure of the GCU only allowed for a 48” payload. This is the same size of payload as the Juno II (Jupiter) launch vehicle so it could have been used. However, the Titan missile would have payload capability to spare and few new satellites were being designed for 48” maximum diameter before launch.

Except for the guidance and control Warhead bus and the warhead itself, an All-up Titan I is fully possible to build in BDB. With the use of the hypothetical HOSS from the Delta Rockets we can get a BDB made “replacement” for the Titan I Guidance and Control Unit (GCU.) The shape of the HOSS GCU is almost correct for a Titan I GCU. The major differences between the HOSS GCU and Titan I GCU being in the shape of the truncated conic structure. Also, the Titan I GCU was designed with two large, removable doors. These doors served one or two purposes in addition to the “easy to maintain” feature. They provided a large access portal for potentially upgrading the Titan I GCU to full design spec. They may also have provided storage space for “Pen-Aids.” Pen-Aids or more formally, penetration aiding devices, being decoys, chaff and the like used to confuse enemy radar during a nuclear attack. We know with certainty that inflatable mylar balloons were used on the Titan I as a RCS mimic for the actual warhead. They may have been ejected from these doors.

Using the SMART-PARTS mod in conjunction with BDB to bring about the proper staging of the Titan I 1^st and 2^nd stage:

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/151340-19x-smart-parts-continued/

https://spacedock.info/mod/614/SmartParts

1. Use a single, Drainex fuel drain sensor from the SmartParts mod on Stage 1. Set this to 7%. Set it to Activate any single Action Group.

2. Add a AGT-Timer Timed Action Group Trigger to the 2^nd stage again from the SmartParts mod

3. Add a SECOND AGT-Timer Timed Action Group Trigger to the 2^nd Stage. This can NOT be in symmetry (as in placed) with the one in step 2 above they must be unique and seperate

4. In the Action group listed in the Drainex sensor placed in step one, you will need the following actions: "Activate Engine" that is at the BOTTOM of the LR91-AJ-3 (there are 2 activate engine buttons on the LR91!) and start one of the two AGT-Timer Timed Action Group Trigger, above set to 7 seconds.

5. The 7 second AGT-Timer Timed Action Group Trigger, will activate another Action group. In this 2nd action group, you will activate the 2^nd AGT-Timer Timed Action Group Trigger added above but it needs to be set to 4 second. In this new ActionGroup, in addition to activating the next AGT, you will Stage the interstage between the first and second stages. Also, to ensure proper Main engine cut off, I also shut down the 1st stage main engine at this time as this is the proper point for MECO.

6. The 4 second timer will activate The UPPER LR91-AJ-3 "Activate engine" as it's only action.

So hypothetical Titan I space launchers:

It is easy to not put a conic GCU on the Titan I’s 2^nd stage and instead just place a 1.5m fairing and rely on the payload in the fairing for control of Titan. This option works in KSP but would not work in the Titan I time frame in real life… as the GCU to control Titan would need to be rather large. I tend to use Tweakscale to make a 1.5m pancake (flat cylindrical) GCU for Titan (often from the 1.875m MOL Control module,) and then place a 1.5m fairing on top of that.

USAF MISS launcher: This is an interesting side note. As part of the USAF MISS (Man in Space Soonest) program that predated the start of NASA, both Martin Corporation and AVCO separately suggested the Titan I as the launch vehicle to get a man in space. In this case the GCU would have been replaced with a new system allowing for both piloted and ground controlled flight. Unlike NASA the USAF was looking for ways for astronauts to actually fly from the outset, their spacecraft.

An alternative B9PS option to the ATLAS-Mercury interstage that performs the same function but to the 1.5m Diameter of the Titan I 2^nd stage would be a welcome addition to BDB. While project Mercury and MISS had little in common, they would both have used a similar sized command module to orbit the astronaut in space. This same interstage could be used on a Jupiter/Juno II launch of the Mercury as was originally proposed when Project Mercury started.

Lastly, and probably the best known alternative/hypothetical use of the Titan I.. The X-20 sub orbital test launcher. Starting with Well’s X-20 Moroz mod, build a full up X-20 including an adapter to match the 1.5m Titan I 2^nd stage. Then build a Titan I underneath it in the VAB. Lastly add 4 large wing/fins that have control surfaces. The X-20 provides so much lift it can topple the Titan I rocket rather quickly in stock Aero (and in whatever replacement Aerodynamics you might use it will topple the rocket… just slightly slower.)

https://spacedock.info/mod/2149/%D0%96-20%20%22Moroz%22%20Spaceplane

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/184435-110-%D0%B6-20-moroz-spaceplane/&tab=comments#comment-3597842

Edited January 26, 2021 by Pappystein
Major Revision on staging as well as links: Spoilered most of the wall o Text

CDSlice · January 18, 2021

@Pappystein have you thought about setting up a blog or something? These articles you’ve been posting are really good and it would be a shame for them to get lost in the BDB dev thread.

pTrevTrevs · January 19, 2021

Did someone say Titan I orbital launches?

Pappystein · January 19, 2021

On 1/18/2021 at 11:52 PM, CDSlice said:

@Pappystein have you thought about setting up a blog or something? These articles you’ve been posting are really good and it would be a shame for them to get lost in the BDB dev thread.

Expand

Thanks for the positive vote! I have, but these articles are meant for a KSP audience and not a strictly historical audience. You can sometimes see this "clash" between "for a game" and "For a historical perspective" in Scott Manley's older YouTube videos. While Scott does an amazing job trying to keep them separate.... It is something I wish to avoid.

YES there is a lot of history gathered in these posts, but they would need to be completely re-written with better fact citing as well if I were to post separate from KSP. I freely admit I write these from memory. I HAVE read ~~hundreds~~ potentially several thousands actually of NASA curated documents, many documents curated by the NMUSAF, and the Smithsonian in its various forms, as well as hundreds of books on these subjects, and lets not forget websites! I have limited access to most of these sources all the time. It kind of easy to pull up the pertinent NTRS documents because I do my best to download and save my own copy of every article I find interesting or informative. But I can not access ALL of those at once.... simply because I would not have enough room to work! Another way to think about it is if I had all my sources in front of me I wouldn't be able to see my 38" ultra-wide monitor that is 18 inches above the level of my keyboard!

What I might do is copy them out of BDB and make my own thread on KSP for them... It is a thought. Most of my larger articles are written in a document editor, so I have copies saved. In the end though, since the end goal is to give back to BDB, they will always be posted HERE first ... well until someone on the BDB team tells me to stop (or a Forum Moderator does the same!)

EDITED

A funny fact I thought I should mention. I sometimes find hard data in the strangest places. For my LR79 article I actually got more data on the LR79 history from a book on potential Battleship conversions than any other book including a book I have on Delta. That is Battleships as in Naval Dreadnoughts, not test articles for space flight! I consider my ability to find, and capture these kind of data points a key for how I build my articles. I doubt any serious "rocket historian" would go looking for data on a rocket... in a book about upgrading World War II built battleships! I did .

Edited January 19, 2021 by Pappystein

Friznit · January 19, 2021

I could make a section on the BDB wiki called Pappyramblings

biohazard15 · January 19, 2021

On 1/18/2021 at 11:31 PM, Pappystein said:

Third and finally. There really is no GCU available to fit on Titan in stock or BDB at the time it's parts unlock. A Bespoke Titan GCU that Part switches between the 0.625-1.5m conic or a cylindrical 1.5m version, (intermediate nodes for the top would be welcome as well!) would be a welcome and amazing addition to the Titan I. Opening doors on it to allow for 1.11 "in space upgrades" would be interesting and useful as well.

Expand

Juno II GCU. Unlocked at basic rocketry and can be toggled between 1.25 and 0.9375. As a nice bonus, it has built-in RCS, which makes it ideal for MandatoryRCS users.

computercat04 · January 19, 2021

All (almost) of the SAF fairings are broken.

Starhelperdude · January 19, 2021

On 1/19/2021 at 12:48 PM, computercat04 said:

All (almost) of the SAF fairings are broken.

Expand

in flight? At least in the VAB they aren't broken

computercat04 · January 19, 2021

On 1/19/2021 at 1:48 PM, Starhelperdude said:

in flight? At least in the VAB they aren't broken

Expand

It seems like they're bugged in the VAB.

Cheesecake · January 19, 2021

On 1/19/2021 at 12:48 PM, computercat04 said:

All (almost) of the SAF fairings are broken.

Expand

I can`t confirm. They work in KSP 1.8.x, 1.9.x, 1.10.x and 1.11.x.
Did you update the SAF-Mod properly to your KSP-version?

What exactly is broken? Log? Picture?

Edited January 19, 2021 by Cheesecake

derega16 · January 19, 2021

When Past and Future collided

This thing shold capable of going to Eloo and back in single launch in JNSQ but it is not the window yet so this will go to Dres instead

Edited January 19, 2021 by derega16

blowfish · January 19, 2021

@Pappystein Titan I only lit the 2nd stage verniers prior to stage separation, the gas generator was run off of a separate set of pumps to facilitate this (this was removed on later LR-91s as they had exhaust holes in the interstage to support full hotstaging. AFAIK they ended up with separation motors too in the end though.

Pappystein · January 19, 2021

On 1/19/2021 at 6:03 PM, blowfish said:

@Pappystein Titan I only lit the 2nd stage verniers prior to stage separation, the gas generator was run off of a separate set of pumps to facilitate this (this was removed on later LR-91s as they had exhaust holes in the interstage to support full hotstaging. AFAIK they ended up with separation motors too in the end though.

Expand

Thanks Blowfish, I sort of knew I had forgotten something but couldn't figure out what it was. I only edited that section 7 days in a row! doh! However I do have a problem and I feel I know why I "forgot" that segment. Every document I have on Titan I and the launch failures talk about how the failure was due to impact or what is loosely described as the Coanda effect without calling it such. In every case the document talks about the main bell igniting at separation "fire in the hole" style. And 2 of my documents actually say "fire in the hole." This still leads me to believe the LR91 was fully burning at stage separation. Now most of my documents predate IOC of the Titan I so it is fully possible Aerojet/Martin/USAF changed how the LR91 was staged. I just don't have any document that says specifically the main bell wasn't ignited until AFTER separation (but would gladly appreciate it if you can post one that says so.) Also the 4 Verniers were used to A) position the payload at the correct angle after 2nd stage MECO, as well as to insure clean separation of the payload from the 2nd stage (the verniers could generate enough torque to break the restraining bolts when the torque is combined with the mass of the expected payload (the MK-IV RV)

Titan II I have a lot more... shall we say consistent information on. There are for example 4x "Thrust Canceling" motors on the top of the first stage that are ignited when second stage engine starts up. There are 3 +1 on top of the 2nd stage. They used the 3+1 because they would fire 3 at warhead separation, creating a torque or yaw motion to the 2nd stage. Then the 4th would cancel the rotation caused by only 3 motors initially firing. This was to turn the 2nd stage broadside to the flight path to "conceal" the much smaller warhead, insure a clean seperation between the warhead and the 2nd stage, as well as to force the 2nd stage to slow down faster in atmosphere (so it would break up and not be in the way of other warheads. Really an interesting maneuver that is VERY HARD to do in KSP using just BDB and Smart Parts.. READ that as impossible FWIW. I think I got had that maneuver work once in an automated fashion. I attempted said maneuver at-least 100 times it seemed like!

Edited January 19, 2021 by Pappystein

biohazard15 · January 19, 2021

Thor-Burner aka Thor-Altair + DMSP-2

Reveal hidden contents

Probably one of the least-known USAF space launchers, Thor-Burner was NOT an early example of "affordable" program designed to use surplus hardware. It was developed as a USAF alternative to Scout, which back then was still in its infancy.

The "Thor" part was a Thor IRBM which came from the batch of 60 missiles stationed in UK under Royal Air Force command from 1959 to 1963. Thor-Burner was the first to employ these "discharged" Thors; eventually, 55 of 60 served as a space launchers.

There were two "Burner" parts.

First one was Grand Central MG-18 ("Block 1"), which was Scout's 4th stage. It was used only twice.

Second one was FW-4S Altair-3 ("Block 2"), used on four launches (with one failure when it failed to ignite). More powerful than MG-18, it allowed for higher orbits. This replica aims to replicate this model.

According to some sources, "Block 2" Thor-Burners featured cold-gas attitude control system on top of Thor, which allowed it to coast just like Able or Delta or any such stage. This system is represented by four Juno RCS thrusters and HLR spherical tank (mounted inside interstage adapter).

Simple in theory, Thor-Burner may be quite hard to fly. First, you can't put much weight to it - no more than about 40 kilograms, otherwise you won't achieve orbit. Second, you have to get the whole rocket to apoapsis - while putting as much fuel as you can into horizontal speed AND carrying the fairing for the most of "powered" part.

Here's one interesting hint: as soon as your altitude is high enough to jettison fairings, shut off the MB-3, and continue on verniers only. You won't get much dV from that, but this would give you some time and opportunity to trim your final apoapsis, and also give you extra control. This is what they did in real life, BTW. Oh, and MIND YOUR APOAPSIS!

Defense Satellite Application Program Block 2 (DSAP-2), later renamed to Defense Meteorological Satellite Program Block 2 (DMSP-2) were part of USAF program designed to supply meteodata to US military.

They were based on early TIROS hardware.

Due to weight limits, this replica uses my old partner - Pioneer 6 core.

Releasing the Altair.

Releasing the satellite from Altair.

Uses a Photopolarimeter from Interkosmos as a camera.

derega16 · January 20, 2021

I looks at ETS rendering and I noticed some thing, service module of Apollo block V and AARDV block II is slightly longer than block III and IV and carry more fuel that's explained why I felt both are lack of dV. Is the apollo revamp wishlist still open?

Also I don't know if it is possible or not for SAF saturn-apollo adapter fairing for sake of extended fairing or ETS artemis fairing. Or it still be a separate parts or prebuild fairing as it is in current version

Edited January 20, 2021 by derega16

KeaKaka · January 20, 2021

I think this is a bug, an Atlas V in the 401 configuration cannot provide enough thrust for it to leave the pad, it only has a TWR of 0.83.

I'm using KSP 1.11.0 and JNSQ.

Edited January 20, 2021 by KeaKaka

blowfish · January 20, 2021

On 1/19/2021 at 10:47 PM, Pappystein said:

but would gladly appreciate it if you can post one that says so

Expand

http://heroicrelics.org/info/titan-i/titan-i-stage-2-engine.html

Reveal hidden contents

I've generally found Heroic Relics to be a reliable source

Pappystein · January 20, 2021

On 1/20/2021 at 2:34 AM, KeaKaka said:

I think this is a bug, an Atlas V in the 401 configuration cannot provide enough thrust for it to leave the pad, it only has a TWR of 0.83.

I'm using KSP 1.11.0 and JNSQ.

Expand

KSP 1.11 has a mass bug. There are many posts about this. Items that should mass below a certain number (I am unsure what off the top of my head) instead act (not be measured but JUST ACT) like they have a mass several times more. I think the number is .25 or 250kg

Known issues and not a BDB bug.... Rather a KSP bug. Suggest rolling back to 1.10.1 until 1.11.1 comes out.

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

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation