Jump to content

Jcking

Members
  • Posts

    330
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jcking

  1. I cloned the master branch of Bella TU and Agena B and D looked just fine, with the exception of Agena D having compression artifacts for the white variants.
  2. Magpie and Bella TU aren’t really meant to go together, and that’s not what Agena D is supposed to look like with Bella TU. Make sure that Magpie isn’t applying it’s configs to Agena.
  3. From newest to oldest (because of the way this forum loads pages, you may have to scroll back to the post, but it is on the page)
  4. 2.7 scale system with a 38.8 ton lander 8.2 meters height, 6.3 meters diameter plus block V for payload, which was within the margins set by a successful test with a block V and a 39.5 ton ore container as payload.
  5. I am pleased to report that the vehicle performed exceptionally, exceeding the variant shielded with the fairing inside the SLA with 300 m/s more remaining in the S-IVC.
  6. Four and three joined together was seriously proposed, although if it was a straw man design or something else is unknown (note that the 3 is in 3x symmetry and is spaced to allow a 33ft payload between the S-IIs).
  7. Saturn H03 with F-1Bs for the first stage. core engine is kept at 60% thrust until 10 seconds to side booster burnout. LES is jettisoned after J2A2 ignition. Payload to 100x100 km orbit is a Apollo block V with a 38.8 ton lander with the main shapes consisting of the cryotanks H50-144 tank (90% of the oxidizer and 70% of the fuel is kept) with 4 LT-2 landing struts on the side of it and Benjee's PEV PT-M100C cabin on top. it is underneath a 3.75 meter fairing for comparison, but that faring is not built when testing the drag of the H03 SLA.
  8. The wide SLA for H03 like the jettisonable SLA does not properly shield the payload, making the vehicle fail to reach orbit with more bulkier payloads, unless a regular fairing also covering the payload, which mitigates the drag issues.
  9. That came from an advanced Gemini study and would service MORL (manned orbital research laboratory) and would have launched from a Saturn I https://web.archive.org/web/20100519170319/http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750069218_1975069218.pdf
  10. None of them are actually S-IVBs. Class II uses a 260 inch diameter propellant tank that uses an extended S-IVB with solids and a Space Shuttle engine as an expendable upper stage combined with the space shuttle booster. Class I is a 396 inch propellant module made for INT-21, but can alternatively be launched on the space shuttle booster and Class III uses 15x60 foot propellant tanks (and is specifically designed such that all parts can fit inside the space shuttle cargo bay). The Lockheed design uses 15x60 tanks, except that the propulsion module tank is launched separate from the propulsion module engine, and the NAR shuttle is practically identical to the Class I MACDAC nuclear shuttle, just with a 8 degree slope that makes up 2/3rds of the propellant module compared to the 10 degree slope that makes up 1/3 of the propellant module and is single launched from an INT-21 (but a hybrid Saturn shuttle version was proposed)
  11. All variations had the ability to enter a low power mode and be left unattended for the duration of the stay (14 days is what is quoted for the two man version). They would also be able to be able to hook up to an RTG, but that was located on the shelter and one of the astronauts would have to EVA to the shelter disconnect the RTG from the shelter, hitch it to the rover, and drive back and hook it up to the taxi.
  12. As far as it is known, no. This does comes from the same study that gave the LM Taxi (a 2 man LM capable of being powered down, but there is also an 3 man LM taxi from a different study), LM Lab (spacelab for Apollo basically) and the LM Truck (unmanned descent stage capable of carrying cargo to the surface).
  13. While I haven’t checked all of them, the Passive Seismic Experiment is covered by the BG one (with the exception of the EASEP version which is included with the mod)
  14. APAS-75 Ports appear in the illustrations, as well as in various proposed space stations and IPP stuff at the time. However it seems to me that they were more representative or an option for an androgynous docking port, and that the Shuttle or these other vehicles would have used an entirely different design as several are depicted with an entirely new design in conjunction and with APAS-75.
  15. It probably would have been just Big Gemini, since Gemini-B is a flown modification (even if unmanned), and that's simply called Gemini-B.
×
×
  • Create New...