Jump to content

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

CobaltWolf

By CobaltWolf
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

SpacedInvader

SpacedInvader

Posted
Posted (edited)
  On 2/7/2021 at 10:24 PM, CobaltWolf said:

The Redstone is a fairly anemic rocket, so I'm not surprised you're having trouble getting a useable upper stage + payload into orbit. Maybe try replacing it, or at least the engines?

Expand  

That's what took me up to the Atlas orginally and the new issue of having too much power / dV for the payload. Is there a middle ground between the two that I'm just missing due to lack of knowledge? I guess I could swap out the engine for something different, just have to keep playing lego-rocket until I can find something middle ground.

  On 2/7/2021 at 10:29 PM, Pappystein said:

I did,   Prior to B9PartSwitch being a thing.   At the time, RF seemed to "lock" your stages... harder to do Lego-building.  

I like Lego building.   Also I don't care that the rocket has the EXACT same burn ratio as the real rocket.   IF I can get close enough... in a Close enough universe... I am A-OK.   Which Is part of the reason I use AZ-50 and NTO for ALL my Hypergolic rockets...

Several things,   You fly the flightpath as needed for your payload and your orbit.  You do not fly the same launch on a Titan 2GLV/IIIB for both Gemini and Keyhole do you?   So you change your flight profile to match your payload.      Look at tools like MechEngineer(Redux) or MechJEb.   You do not need to use the auto pilot in MJ for example.  There are a lot of good indicators added by those mods to help you fly even if you are flying yourself.

Expand  

I tend to rely on Gravity Turn for my launches, though I've been playing around a little with MJ's prime vector guidance as I've always loved the idea of doing a more realistic single burn to orbit but have always had trouble doing it by hand or with ascent guidance from other sources. I also generally avoid hand flying anything other than maneuvers these days because even without this difficulty I've been experiencing recently, I tend to only give myself a relatively small spare dV budget because it doesn't feel very realistic to build a rocket with 8k dV when my mission only needs ~6k just so I can have room to bork the ascent. That all said, I know that different rockets need different ascent paths, I'm just spoiled by being able to build something with enough dV and too much TWR and then dial the TWR down to make it flyable.

On the RF configs issue, what do you mean by "lock" in this case? Did it mean you couldn't adjust the TWR like I was experiencing, or was it something else?

Edited by SpacedInvader
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Friznit

Friznit

Posted
Posted
  On 2/8/2021 at 1:52 AM, SpacedInvader said:

That's what took me up to the Atlas orginally and the new issue of having too much power / dV for the payload. Is there a middle ground between the two that I'm just missing due to lack of knowledge? I guess I could swap out the engine for something different, just have to keep playing lego-rocket until I can find something middle ground.

I tend to rely on Gravity Turn for my launches, though I've been playing around a little with MJ's prime vector guidance as I've always loved the idea of doing a more realistic single burn to orbit but have always had trouble doing it by hand or with ascent guidance from other sources. I also generally avoid hand flying anything other than maneuvers these days because even without this difficulty I've been experiencing recently, I tend to only give myself a relatively small spare dV budget because it doesn't feel very realistic to build a rocket with 8k dV when my mission only needs ~6k just so I can have room to bork the ascent. That all said, I know that different rockets need different ascent paths, I'm just spoiled by being able to build something with enough dV and too much TWR and then dial the TWR down to make it flyable.

On the RF configs issue, what do you mean by "lock" in this case? Did it mean you couldn't adjust the TWR like I was experiencing, or was it something else?

Expand  

https://github.com/friznit/Unofficial-BDB-Wiki/wiki/Payload-Performance

Obviously the numbers will be completely different for a launch to GTO but it should give you a rough idea of what could sit in between Redstone and Atlas, historical timelines permitting of course, if that's also a deciding factor for you.

I've used MJ PVG a fair amount but I find it tends to work better on higher altitude launches - 200x200 at a minimum.  Below that and it tends to overshoot and burn back 'down', or burn up if the trajectory is flatter - I guess that's the whole point of not being able to throttle!  I don't use Real Fuels or Engine Ignitor but I've found that even flying manually now I tend to do single burns to orbit with no throttling (in JNSQ planet pack).  I guess I'm subconsciously mimicking MJ, but they're efficient enough launches so that suits me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SpacedInvader

SpacedInvader

Posted
Posted (edited)
  On 2/8/2021 at 9:50 AM, Friznit said:

https://github.com/friznit/Unofficial-BDB-Wiki/wiki/Payload-Performance

Obviously the numbers will be completely different for a launch to GTO but it should give you a rough idea of what could sit in between Redstone and Atlas, historical timelines permitting of course, if that's also a deciding factor for you.

I've used MJ PVG a fair amount but I find it tends to work better on higher altitude launches - 200x200 at a minimum.  Below that and it tends to overshoot and burn back 'down', or burn up if the trajectory is flatter - I guess that's the whole point of not being able to throttle!  I don't use Real Fuels or Engine Ignitor but I've found that even flying manually now I tend to do single burns to orbit with no throttling (in JNSQ planet pack).  I guess I'm subconsciously mimicking MJ, but they're efficient enough launches so that suits me!

Expand  

 This is great, thanks! IDK why, but it never occurred to me to look down the list on your wiki to find this on my own, instead I've been pouring over the individual entries to see what they were used to launch and then try to infer from that what I should try using.

EDIT: As for hand flying, part of the issue for me is that hand controlling a rocket going up hill feels tedious and twitchy to me... tap one of the direction keys a little too long and you're at least going off of peak efficiency and potentially going tumbling. I also get more enjoyment from letting the machine do the work while I have fun designing the vehicles. I do hand fly most maneuvers and all landings though.

Edited by SpacedInvader
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zorg

Zorg

Posted
Posted (edited)
  On 2/8/2021 at 9:50 AM, Friznit said:

https://github.com/friznit/Unofficial-BDB-Wiki/wiki/Payload-Performance

Obviously the numbers will be completely different for a launch to GTO but it should give you a rough idea of what could sit in between Redstone and Atlas, historical timelines permitting of course, if that's also a deciding factor for you.

I've used MJ PVG a fair amount but I find it tends to work better on higher altitude launches - 200x200 at a minimum.  Below that and it tends to overshoot and burn back 'down', or burn up if the trajectory is flatter - I guess that's the whole point of not being able to throttle!  I don't use Real Fuels or Engine Ignitor but I've found that even flying manually now I tend to do single burns to orbit with no throttling (in JNSQ planet pack).  I guess I'm subconsciously mimicking MJ, but they're efficient enough launches so that suits me!

Expand  

 

  On 2/8/2021 at 9:56 AM, SpacedInvader said:

 This is great, thanks! IDK why, but it never occurred to me to look down the list on your wiki to find this on my own, instead I've been pouring over the individual entries to see what they were used to launch and then try to infer from that what I should try using.

EDIT: As for hand flying, part of the issue for me is that hand controlling a rocket going up hill feels tedious and twitchy to me... tap one of the direction keys a little too long and you're at least going off of peak efficiency and potentially going tumbling. I also get more enjoyment from letting the machine do the work while I have fun designing the vehicles. I do hand fly most maneuvers and all landings though.

Expand  

Following this discussion I decided to help expand on the payload performance section and go a bit more in depth into what various rockets are good for. Right now just covering Titan IV-B. It wont go into such detail on most of the rest, but Titan IV is a good example of how much performance can vary due to thrust vs efficiency in your final stage. For instance the absolute max payload capacity to very low kerbin orbit thats actually acheivable with a Centaur is almost the same as using no 3rd stage due to gravity/cosine losses from having to loft to avoid crashing back into the atmo. But a Centaur offers good performance to GTO and remarkable performance direct to GEO. Hopefully as this section grows this will help users pick out the appropriate rockets or stages for various missions requirements and serve as a quick reference guide even if you're an old hand at these rockets.

The figures are also going to be based on realistic throttle and ignition requirements, which don't make a huge difference but does play into the trajectory design and final result a bit.

Screenshot_2021-02-09_04.43.07.png

https://github.com/friznit/Unofficial-BDB-Wiki/wiki/Payload-Performance

 

Edited by Zorg
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pappystein

Pappystein

Posted
Posted
  On 2/8/2021 at 1:52 AM, SpacedInvader said:

On the RF configs issue, what do you mean by "lock" in this case? Did it mean you couldn't adjust the TWR like I was experiencing, or was it something els

Expand  

Engine and tank combos almost had to be specifically setup...  EG agena Engine needed Agena tanks.   Mind you, that was BEFORE BDB really existed, or if it did exist it was when I was still being all "1.5m is not a stock-alike size"    Of course the last rocket I flew was a Atlas F (the proposed never flown one that would make Atlas II look short!)   Flew it with a full Centaur / Centaur Jr stack...   1.5m for Centaur JR because at 1.25... well lit looks like Thin Man to Little Boy....  

H-2 Booster engines FTW! :D

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jcking

Jcking

Posted
Posted (edited)

For now, you can get around this by just manually changing the height of the vessel via the .craft file (no need to exit the game to change the vessel height, but you will have to do this with every change made to the craft).

Edited by Jcking
Link to comment
Share on other sites
biohazard15

biohazard15

Posted
Posted

OPS 0855, aka OV4-3

(NB: If you want to complete this mission without FMRS, aim at 200+ km orbit (2.5x KSRSS, YMMV depending on your planet mods), and switch to Gemini immediately after OV4-3 completed its circularization burn. Also, pay attention to notes below.)

This truly historical flight was launched at 3 November, 1966 and was the first (and the only) launch performed under Manned Orbital Laboratory (MOL, aka KH-10 DORIAN) USAF program. It was a "proof of concept" flight, demonstrating launch configuration of planned MOLs and testing Gemini separation mechanism.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

  On 2/10/2021 at 1:22 AM, gc1ceo said:

What do people use for RTGs for the few historical builds from Bluedog that utilize a RTG? For example, the Nimbus 3.

Expand  

There are RTGs for Nimbus 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
biohazard15

biohazard15

Posted
Posted
  On 2/10/2021 at 1:36 AM, gc1ceo said:

I'm not finding any included RTGs in BD either in the stable or dev files or am I overlooking something?

Expand  

Download the latest "master" build from Github - they are there. The one meant for Nimbus 3 is called PB-PANS-19M and is located in Basic Science techtree node.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SpacedInvader

SpacedInvader

Posted
Posted
  On 2/8/2021 at 11:42 PM, Zorg said:

 

Following this discussion I decided to help expand on the payload performance section and go a bit more in depth into what various rockets are good for. Right now just covering Titan IV-B. It wont go into such detail on most of the rest, but Titan IV is a good example of how much performance can vary due to thrust vs efficiency in your final stage. For instance the absolute max payload capacity to very low kerbin orbit thats actually acheivable with a Centaur is almost the same as using no 3rd stage due to gravity/cosine losses from having to loft to avoid crashing back into the atmo. But a Centaur offers good performance to GTO and remarkable performance direct to GEO. Hopefully as this section grows this will help users pick out the appropriate rockets or stages for various missions requirements and serve as a quick reference guide even if you're an old hand at these rockets.

The figures are also going to be based on realistic throttle and ignition requirements, which don't make a huge difference but does play into the trajectory design and final result a bit.

Screenshot_2021-02-09_04.43.07.png

https://github.com/friznit/Unofficial-BDB-Wiki/wiki/Payload-Performance

 

Expand  

This is great! It clearly lays out what applications work best for each vehicle combination. Thanks for putting in the work to show this!

  On 2/9/2021 at 12:02 AM, Pappystein said:

Engine and tank combos almost had to be specifically setup...  EG agena Engine needed Agena tanks.   Mind you, that was BEFORE BDB really existed, or if it did exist it was when I was still being all "1.5m is not a stock-alike size"    Of course the last rocket I flew was a Atlas F (the proposed never flown one that would make Atlas II look short!)   Flew it with a full Centaur / Centaur Jr stack...   1.5m for Centaur JR because at 1.25... well lit looks like Thin Man to Little Boy.... 

 

 

 

 

 

Expand  

Not sure how long ago that was, but if you're thinking of the older FASA stuff, IIRC yeah, those old configs were really inflexible. So far my experience with the newer configs is that they are about as flexible as the BDB parts themselves. I've swapped plenty of parts around without issue... in fact, I'd say the most trouble I've had is from using the correct builds because of the aforementioned problems with over / under power for my payloads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KeaKaka

KeaKaka

Posted
Posted
  On 2/10/2021 at 1:28 AM, biohazard15 said:

OPS 0855, aka OV4-3

(NB: If you want to complete this mission without FMRS, aim at 200+ km orbit (2.5x KSRSS, YMMV depending on your planet mods), and switch to Gemini immediately after OV4-3 completed its circularization burn. Also, pay attention to notes below.)

This truly historical flight was launched at 3 November, 1966 and was the first (and the only) launch performed under Manned Orbital Laboratory (MOL, aka KH-10 DORIAN) USAF program. It was a "proof of concept" flight, demonstrating launch configuration of planned MOLs and testing Gemini separation mechanism.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

Expand  

Just a couple of notes.

The LR-87 is supposed to be ignited 10 seconds (not 5) before SRM cutoff, and the LR-91 needs to be hot-staged (igniting the second engine just before first engine cutoff).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
biohazard15

biohazard15

Posted
Posted
  On 2/10/2021 at 1:59 AM, KeaKaka said:

The LR-87 is supposed to be ignited 10 seconds (not 5) before SRM cutoff, and the LR-91 needs to be hot-staged (igniting the second engine just before first engine cutoff).

Expand  

I know :)

Unfortunately, these features may be hard to incorporate into replica flights. Staging LR-87 earlier (yes, even at T-10s) leads to a massive TWR spike, which may be not good. And jettisoning Gemini B during or after 2nd core stage burnout may lead to it landing somewhere in Africa or Indian Ocean (trust me, I've tried!). Not to metion that jettisoning it with 2nd stage burning usually leads to disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pappystein

Pappystein

Posted
Posted
  On 2/10/2021 at 2:09 AM, biohazard15 said:

I know :)

Unfortunately, these features may be hard to incorporate into replica flights. Staging LR-87 earlier (yes, even at T-10s) leads to a massive TWR spike, which may be not good. And jettisoning Gemini B during or after 2nd core stage burnout may lead to it landing somewhere in Africa or Indian Ocean (trust me, I've tried!). Not to metion that jettisoning it with 2nd stage burning usually leads to disaster.

Expand  

If you are getting a "Massive TRW spike" then you have a patch to disable engine spool.    If you have such a patch then there is almost no way to get a replica flight of Titan.   ALTERNATIVELY, you might have a patch that is affecting the SRMs because they are at about half thrust when the LR87 should be turning on.   

On the other hand, nice looking Titan III-M (the Titan IIIM replcia/prototype)   Sadly that flight was just to "waste the extra money we have"  As it served almost zero informational/scientific improvement to the Titan program.  The only thing that was from the actual MOL was the Gemini II (aka BLUE-Gemini) capsule test.     Oh it did provide an almost correct size for a "Fit test" on the ground... Didn't need to launch it after doing that however! :D

the III-M (aka OPS 0855, aka OV4-3) is a Titan IIIC with the 2nd generation UA-1205s and the standard tank lengths for Titan IIIC (and it flew on LR87-AJ-9 engines instead of AJ-11s!)  

Conversely as is probably well known at this juncture....  The "real" Titan IIIM (or more probably correct 24M!)  would have flown with 2nd generation UA-1207s,   The Stretched 1st stage tank and the LR87-AJ-11 engines.

The LR87-AJ-11 PARTS (as in to test them in flight) did not start flying on Titan IIICs until the flight before the Titan III-M flight.   It would be almost 2 years before the LR87 and LR91 would fly with full up AJ-11 engines.  That would be the start of the Titan 23 family for those of you keeping score! :D

However mass media loves to quote the -11 engines on all Titan IIIs.   Because the Titan IIIB and Titan IIIC flew with different parts (eg bigger hydraulic actuators, wider spaced combustion chambers, skirt extensions, a lot of other things,) but never with more than 2 of any of the various "upgraded" parts.   And with the exception of the bell-skirt extensions and wider spacing they were all single part replacements.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pappystein

Pappystein

Posted
Posted

Just a friendly update on the Titan IV engine saga.

I have found proof... that I can't share (but at-least I can cite it!) of the AJ-11A engines!  YAY.   Sadly the document in question predates the actual Titan IV order.   So I still don't know IF they were ordered or flew.   But 1 step closer!

So a conversation had on one of @CobaltWolfs streams during the Titan Dev cycle is going to come back to bite me.    If what Ed Kyle says is correct.... there is an easy visual clue as to the LR87-AJ-11A...

   Per Ed Kyle the turbo-pump exhaust was fitted with De-Laval nozzles on the -11A (which would generate more thrust!)   and those are only visible on the Titan IV and CT3 .   All previous Titan III family members with SRMs the Turbo-pump exhaust was flush with the bottom of the " boat-tail"   On the Titan CT3 and IV, they extended below... and latter had the bell shapes added on.

140829-F-IO108-012.JPG

The Black bag looking thing above the two engine bells is the Turbo-pump exhaust for the engine closest to the camera.

notice the bell shape. and the pinched waist above the bell?

050328-F-1234P-002.JPG

Notice on this older LR87-AJ-5 or 7 the Turbo-pump Exhaust is basically a straight pipe....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CobaltWolf

CobaltWolf

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
  On 2/8/2021 at 1:52 AM, SpacedInvader said:

That's what took me up to the Atlas orginally and the new issue of having too much power / dV for the payload. Is there a middle ground between the two that I'm just missing due to lack of knowledge? I guess I could swap out the engine for something different, just have to keep playing lego-rocket until I can find something middle ground.

Expand  

Probably want to use a Thor or Jupiter first stage then.

  On 2/10/2021 at 3:35 PM, zakkpaz said:

Speaking of RTG's, have they been balanced for the game yet? they seem a bit overpowered

Expand  

Probably not, the current update is the aether and hasn't told me whether all its bugs are fixed or not :P

 

Speaking of not knowing what's going on with the current release, I realized I haven't posted the current state of the Apollo CSM:

KmFlvIu.png

 

This weekend I think I'd like to start on the LM? Since I want to get everything basically modeled so that I can verify everything fits together, before I actually start texturing. Last night, Apollo the Gecko was helping me do some research on it. As I pondered, my assistant gave me some inspiration: Henceforth, the LM shall be known in BDB as the Munar Landing and Excursion Module, or MLEM.

sD9vrsB.jpgXjn9XOT.jpg

LZTYCrP.jpgq7OR0wa.jpg

 

 

Edited by CobaltWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starhelperdude

Starhelperdude

Posted
Posted
  On 2/10/2021 at 4:54 PM, CobaltWolf said:

Probably want to use a Thor or Jupiter first stage then.

Probably not, the current update is the aether and hasn't told me whether all its bugs are fixed or not :P

 

Speaking of not knowing what's going on with the current release, I realized I haven't posted the current state of the Apollo CSM:

KmFlvIu.png

 

This weekend I think I'd like to start on the LM? Since I want to get everything basically modeled so that I can verify everything fits together, before I actually start texturing. Last night, Apollo the Gecko was helping me do some research on it. As I pondered, my assistant gave me some inspiration: Henceforth, the LM shall be known in BDB as the Munar Landing and Excursion Module, or MLEM.

sD9vrsB.jpgXjn9XOT.jpg

LZTYCrP.jpgq7OR0wa.jpg

 

 

Expand  

cute boi

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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...