Jump to content

debaker02

Members
  • Posts

    113
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

71 Excellent

Profile Information

  • About me
    Curious George

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yeah, it was a good enough type program with schedule and cost constraints. It's a pretty clever design, they made something pretty capable with some tooling they already had. That is good design, they understood not only what to design, but what they could also build. To the point, all of the Saturn hardware had some room for both reliability and part count improvements. They had not actually optimized them fully. It's so hard to guess what would have happened. There were numerous options, and a few that seemed to stand out. The INT-20/21 seemed promising. AAP briefed Congress on updated stretches to S-1b as well. So if they kept flying it, they might have improved the engines and added more fuel or added titian iii srbs. The big item is that Saturn 1b is probably good enough, I mean the Russians flew/fly Proton as their heavy lift for a long time and it's comparable in performance. Then if you look at the cost numbers that were quoted to Congress in '67, if you manage to make a couple of INT-20s common enough with ~4 Saturn 5 rockets built in a year, it pushes the unit cost down considerably. 6 Saturn V in a year was sort of a knee in the curve. Or you can cut it all and focus on the future with a flexible space shuttle after massive budget cuts and loss of interest.
  2. It's all hypothetical, but it was proposed to launch a sm tug upside-down docked to the lander. Although a crew launch is doable, plenty to do for a crewed mission.
  3. Just a general question, is there any consensus on what would have been the replacement/upgrade for the Saturn 1 if we kept flying? Probably another upgrade for the H1? H2 was going to be basically a new engine? Does the E1 fit as an upgrade (I know the timelines were not right on that engine, but gameplay wise it is an upgrade right)? Then probably SRB on the side for heavy lift? What do the people think?
  4. Hmmm except the CMP did go on Eva in earlier fights. I thought the second set of ports were so they could share life support in emergency on the moon?
  5. If you do restock, then this tantares, near future, and a bunch more mods all go together great. They even matched off whites.....
  6. A common thing I do is use an bossart-inon to put a satellite into geo-transfer-orbit. Then I use the solid to move the Pe all the way out when the orbital requirements are meet. Then the spacecraft has a little attitude control system that can fix the orbit errors and kerbal-station-keep. -D
  7. Lol you are never to stupid my jokes are just that bad.
  8. We need a mechjeb patch to make it fly like the real thing!
  9. You might want to play with the mass of the payload or add ballast. It's not possible to fly every rocket to a circular orbit for every alt. E.g. may need like 120*250/350 if you are too light in jnsq. Pvg also allows you to set the pitch program rate, which will help you get higher before stable guidance is reached. Control systems are hard....
  10. 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.
  11. Hey thanks! That will help my campaign along!
  12. Hey, Looking Good; is it possible for you to add a nose code that does not have the docking port built in? I use a CADS port from BDB. Thanks either way!
×
×
  • Create New...