Jump to content

Jcking

Members
  • Posts

    330
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jcking

  1. From what I recall the only difference is the longer burn time that the OSA has, something that isn’t simulated in BDB and most kerbal mods.
  2. I would like you to know that this was seriously considered (but saner heads prevailed and MOLAB went forward instead until that died).
  3. The NAR MEM was an aerobraking/retropropulsion design with ballutes deployed at mach 3.5 and jettisoned at mach 1.5, at which point retropropulsion with a 140,000 lbf FLOX/CH4 aerospike begins bleeding off excess velocity until touchdown.
  4. What is called the ALSS lunar base is the SLA mini-base (which sadly the report isn't on the public internet).
  5. Funny thing is that the July 1961 baseline vehicle uses solid propellant motors for the circumulunar, lunar orbital and lunar landing versions (with an increasing amount of solid motors depending on the mission). There is a what I presume to be a contractor version (can't tell for sure as the document only refers to it as Design II) of Apollo that uses the conic capsule from July of 61 is all liquid storeable propellant, but with an unusual SM arrangement.
  6. Yeah, the basic idea was that you can burn atmospheric oxygen with fuel rich engine exhaust for extra thrust. This also allows you to reduce the amount of LOX on board the vehicle.
  7. There's roughly two different NOVAs, the early ones (which include your NASA NOVAs) were around as capable as C-8 (and the baseline nova was practically identical to C-8 with the exception of a two M-1 second stage), and the later ~1 million lbs to orbit NOVAs. For the latter, having the F-1, and M-1 modeled isn't as useful as one would think.
  8. Expansion Deflection, not bell. It's a type of altitude compensating nozzle. Rocketdyne worked on a couple, and Aerojet built and test fired one.
  9. A version of Voyager Mars. A orbiter and lander combination similar to Viking, but two are launched at a time by a Saturn V.
  10. Re: C-8. Below are MSFC critiques on the program as of June 23, 1962. "The schedule is shown is considered optimistic even with the assumptions listed. It is a success schedule in which nothing goes wrong, all technical judgements are correct, and there are no failures. The six (6) vehicle R&D program is extremely undesirable considering the jump in technology from Saturn C-1 to C-8. The decision required on July 1, 1962 to meet the schedule cannot be made without a major change in NASA policy and without a complete disruption of the Apollo program and the thousands of personnel now doing productive work towards the mission objective. A major redirection at this time would cause considerable delays in the schedule to bring C-8 to the same status that C-5 is today. Based on past experience at MSFC in implementing programs of this magnitude, it is estimated that the first C-8 flight could take place in May 1967. This allows for time to stop the presently approved C-5 program and to the define the C-8 program in sufficient detail that decisions can be made, facilities can be started and the contractors can be given sufficient information to start the stage development. Considering the technical uncertainties in the C-8 development, a 10 vehicle R&D program is almost mandatory although secondary missions could be flown starting on flight No. 6. Manned flights should not be considered prior to No. 11 in March 1969."
  11. Not any parts specifically for the SEIs Saturn derived HLLVs, but the parts are there for you to make one.
  12. Nothing is in a playable state at the time of this message, so just sit tight.
  13. There are several dozen shuttle upgrades that fall under STS Block 2 or Shuttle 2. Some of them similar, quite a few contradictory.
  14. The 2.3.12 version made for 1.4.2 still works fine (plus you don’t need all the dependencies that the newer ones require), and tweak all removes the limitations on configs. The version checker complains that it’s out of date, but that means nothing.
  15. On the contrary, a reusable version was studied, but was an entirely new vehicle more or less (note that the LOX and LH2 tanks are now conical with flat bulkheads and are made out of 32 segmented multicellular tanks to provide a lighter but more expensive tank structure). Recovery of strapons would consist of a tail first entry with a 70ft diameter ballute providing stabilization for the SRMs and parachute providing deceleration. recovery system weight is expected to be ~40,000 lbs (unknown if this is per strapon or for all strapons). Recovery of the injection system would consist of a base first entry using main engines for deorbit with a balloon or ballute/ parachute system providing stabilization and deceleration. recovery system weight for that is expected to be ~98,000 lbs.
  16. 1140 tons (AMLLV is a 4 million lbs to orbit max). As for single launch bases to mun or duna, the parts available in mods and in stock aren't large enough to justify that (even the massive 5m centrifuge from SSPXR is only like 20 tons), and for fun you could launch 14 of FFTs antimatter beam engines to orbit at their full extension. Maybe in KSP2 there will be good use cases for such large vehicles, but not in KSP.
  17. So obsessed with big rockets, but when you get them you realize that there isn't much if anything in the game or mods to justify them, so they sit unused.
  18. Wouldn't that make it 4 SMs? Mini Mod Big G IIIM, S-IB conic, Advanced Big G INT-20, and this culled one? EDIT: Logistics Spacecraft Evolving from Gemini Volume I Summary Report states that "A third configuration was considered prior to mid-term but was dropped with the deletion of the Saturn IB launch vehicle as a study requirement", and the launch configurations and the final concepts consider lead me to believe that it was the conic Saturn IB version that was culled instead of a cylindrical design. For reference, here are the two configurations ultimately put forth (not shown is that the propulsion module separates from the cargo module at right about the RCS cluster, but both don't use solids).
  19. Internal contractor ideas that never even made it to the restricted/limited distribution/classified section of NTRS were either lost, destroyed, or still in boxes in company, museum, or college archives; or even someone’s attic.
  20. The JSTOR papers you can make a free account and get to read 100 or so per month. However you are given the pages as images so go to your page info or inspect element to grab them and save them. IEEE, AIAA, SAE stuff you can usually find on NTRS for the modern stuff (1990-) if they were actual NASA papers and not by contractors. Beyond that search up the name of the paper in quotations and you might come across another website that hosts it for you to download for free (though I cannot vouch for the trustworthiness of said site(s)). As for sites with freely accessible papers: NASA Technical Reports server, Internet Archive, Hathitrust, OSTI, UNT government documents department. Listings has around 12,000 pages of NTRS numbers and titles which some plugged into the webarchive using the old CASI link format (like the ones in my previous post) will bring back captures of documents which are either difficult or impossible to find any other way.
  21. Luckily that one was saved, many of that series were either not saved, or were never there. BTW, can you post the title of your first link as it requires a university account to access? Never mind, the title is: The Space Station; A Fundamental Part of the Integrated Space Program. https://web.archive.org/web/20100519121815/http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700075027_1970075027.pdf A little bonus. https://web.archive.org/web/20100519212255/http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700018358_1970018358.pdf
×
×
  • Create New...