Jump to content

Jcking

Members
  • Posts

    330
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jcking

  1. Would it be possible to have a switch to remove the solar attachment points, because some of the Orion proposals used basically the same service module with different solar and RCS arrangements?
  2. What it says on the tin: a widebody Agena. Transtage and Agena have nothing in common (and shuttle Transtage was one of the upper sages considered)
  3. These rockets have an ascent profile that one would most often use in stock where the first stage sends the vehicle on a suborbital trajectory followed by a cost to apogee and the subsequent solid stages circularize the orbit by firing sequentially at apogee (or slightly before, the maneuver node for the circularization burn that you should have made will tell you exactly). BDB solids have a action to prematurely shut down the engine, so that you can more accurately choose an orbit.
  4. Are you cloning the 1.11 repository, because that is where the lrv (and some other parts) live at this moment.
  5. The user was asking about Direct ascent Apollo (of which there were several and some could fit on C-5), not C-8 or the Nova direct ascent vehicles. I’ve believe I remember hearing Cobalt mention that he would be open to (or at least entertained the possibility of) making a direct ascent lander that one would launch using an uprated Saturn V, but that doesn’t mean it’s on the cards as I don’t speak for the BDB team.
  6. Cobalt occasionally streams his work on parts for BDB in various states of completion that have various levels of work on them. He’ll link the stream in this topic when he is streaming.
  7. Pioneer 6, 7, 8 (launched in 65, 66, and 67 respectively) were still in a partial operational state in the late 90's and Pioneer 6 had successful telemetry contact in 2000. 6 held the record for the oldest operating probe untill beaten by voyager 2 in 2012, with contact with those 3 probes (9 was unable to be contacted in 87) believed to still be possible, but none being attempted. MLV V /4-260 was designed with cross-feed in mind with main engines and strapons lit at launch and auxiliary fuel tanks drained at SRB separation (the fairing is hammerheaded which is why it looks weird). the S-IVB tanks are about the right size and serve as a suitable stand-in, but should be set to liquid fuel and oxidizer with fuel level adjusted to match burn time.
  8. Some early concepts for the VAB featured waterways with barge transport instead of the crawler. Advanced concepts for Gemini and Geminis launched on Titan III and Saturn IB used the LES. Crewed big Gs always launched with an LES.
  9. The clipping is only visual and not with the actual collider of the interstage (further more that blanket bit clips with the stringer bit). the interstage still separates cleanly with the aft MDA if you used those ports and the 0.625 node.
  10. The MM shield has an auto deploy at altitude setting enabled by default. You turned that off too?
  11. Gemini can't transfer crew through the front. you'll have to go through the back or out the hatch, and there are several parts to accommodate rear docking. Mercury has an escape hatch in the front, but you have to remove part of the instrument panel, and main and drogue chutes (plus containers) to get through it, and then squeeze through a space that's barely big enough for one to crawl out of.
  12. The vehicle depicted there is another direct ascent lander and is basically a vertical lander version of the direct ascent lander from "A Feasible Approach for an Early Manned Lunar Landing Part I Summary Report of Ad Hoc Task Group Study June 16, 1961" and is a NASA design from what I can determine (side note, there is a significant amount of lost development from May to October of 1961 for Apollo).
  13. Of all of these, the Grumman LEM and all the NAA and NASA direct vehicles are enigmas (NAA in general because there is pretty much nothing as to the winning study and almost nothing to track from original proposal to final product).
  14. There is a proposal for a two man direct ascent lander using C-5 and cryogenic propellants.
  15. Nerva II (known more commonly in period documentation as the 75k thrust full flow nerva) was from what I can find a later development after work was stopped on the heated bleed AJ31-6 and hot bleed AJ30-5 (though it seems that there was always work on or at least the idea of a big nerva as the nerva on Saturn C-2 nuclear has nearly identical performance as nerva II, but the switch to full flow was definitely a later thing). The engine compared to previous nervas has a thrust of 75,000lbs and specific impulse of 825 seconds compared to the 55,800lbs thrust and 757 seconds from AJ31-6 (30-5 is a slightly worse version of 31-6).
  16. From what I can see: widespread use of tweakscale all around with Benjee Stowaway, Habtech2, BDB, Restock, NFLV, B9 aerospace, conformal decals.
  17. I am using the telescoping nozzle timberwind and not Nerva II, the former is roughly the same size as the restock nerva I (the one with integral roll control nozzles).
  18. Because you can use Atlas (note that this thing will barely make it into orbit with no payload).
  19. I typically have 4 separation motors on each booster. Two at the upper roll pattern and two at the lower roll pattern and it usually provides clean separation.
  20. You can safely delete the folder groups like Mercury, or Probe Expansion to prune the size of the mod.
  21. The vehicle wasn’t really inspired by the real life concept, but rather the Dawn of the Dragon alternate history series which was loosely inspired by the real life concept, combines with US MORL proposals. The equipment module you should think not as a extension of the crew capsule (the rumble seat and Big G extension covers that), but rather a sort of mission/ service module akin to a tiny version of the TKS orbital and propulsion module.
  22. The image is from astronautix and the document doesn't tell anything more than astronautix, but more importantly it (like the astronautix article) doesn't cite where it got it's information on. With astronautix having proven itself a site of questionable reliability and my finding aids turning up nothing except for Lunar Applications for Spent S-IVB stages, I have to question if this thing is even something that was ever conceptualized. EDIT: the base does exist (or at least something in that description), but the reports are not available online (SLA Mini-Base concept for extended lunar missions volumes 1-3 NTRS 19710072053-19710072055). Following that rabbit hole brought an image from the alternate history forums (all the way at the bottom) of what claims to be an image from volume I showcasing the launch configuration.
×
×
  • Create New...