Jcking

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.

F-1A and J-2S Saturns were sometimes denoted with a U suffix e.g. MLV-SAT-V-25(S)U: 4 156 inch strapons, 40 foot stretch on S-IC with 5 F-1As, standard length S-II with 5 J-2Ss (Note that the F-1s are actually referred to as F-1s uprated to 1.8 million lbs thrust, but to my knowledge this is just the F-1A).

I’ve noticed that, seems to be an issue with rounding diameters to the nearest KSP part diameter. I found that using the stockalike 1.875m fairing under the IUS (set to 1.5m bottom and with a 1.5m decoupler) and the SAF 1.875m fairing on top of the IUS hides the stage well and keeps the look of the 34D. The RCS is still too big on the IUS, but the z fighting isn’t there.

BDB does not have waterfall support for SRBs. Waterfall is not designed with the billowing clouds that SRBs produce in atmosphere in mind and while people have done configs for solid upper stages that are designed to be used in vacuum (where SRB plumes look more like the plumes that waterfall was designed around), BDB does not.

Extensions are planned, will be just barrel sections on the top of the adapters (which is what was proposed for a nuclear Saturn IB/V stage).

RO support is handled by the RO people. Some of the parts have been used with permission as part of RO Capsules/Engines/etc.

While I haven’t asked any of the ETS people, I don’t believe the ACV is copied off of any specific design and I believe seeing Nertea mention that he modeled the capsule off of the ACV.

If I have to guess, that is because the Apollo chutes for some reason use the deployed size for size calculations.

It was a vehicle depicted in an in universe ETS proposal

This website states that Pegasus didn't have anything in the way of attitude control, it would just track it's orientation while it slowly tumbled in space. https://www.drewexmachina.com/2015/02/16/50-years-ago-today-the-launch-of-apollo-a-103pegasus-1/

It shouldn’t be a problem if you are using the deployable fairing. Using the jettisonable fairing on Saturn IB you will fall way short of orbital velocity, such that no mass savings will save the mission (you can see the vehicle almost stop accelerating towards the end of S-Ib burn).

For Post-Saturn Novas, this is the best I've got for Martin, and for GD check SDASM's Flickr if you want to know what they were looking at. https://web.archive.org/web/20100519195640/http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750065864_1975065864.pdf

Are you using the jettisonable SLA, because that one has crippling drag for Saturn IB

Unfortunately the design you see with the overgrown reusable landers seems to have been only notional. NAR's lunar shelter which made use of those landers had modules strapped on the sides of the lander, which would be assembled on the surface and buried in lunar soil. More information can be found in the Lunar Base Synthesis Study (May 1971). https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search?q=lunar base synthesis study

The bit with the RCS quads separates from the cargo module with 8 gemini retro motors for deorbit.

S-II had enough inertia that the ullage motors weren't required.

While the report on the 6 segment hinged heatshield concept doesn't state a landing site, earlier Apollo studies assumed landing in the lake beds of Edwards AFB for land landings.

That was one of several concepts. A NAA report depicts soft landing thrusters similar to Soyuz And one similar to TKS VA / Voskhod

I experienced this on my part. Saturn IB with Skylab configuration CSM will make it to a 100x99km orbit with swing panel SLA with ~140m/s to spare, but when using jettison-able panels the vehicle will end suborbital and almost stop accelerating at about the 200-300m/s point on S-IB and end up somewhere around 30 seconds closer to apogee, 500 m/s slower and have an apogee about 25 km lower at stage separation.

Skylab CSMs were also required to enter a semidormant state and act as backup attitude control for Skylab.

As of May and June of 1961, hydrogen oxygen engines were universal for the recommended configuration for the GE, Convair, and Martin submissions with only the GE entrant during this time having information on the alternate propellant concepts (that I know of, though it is likely that the other entrants investigated other fuels) with Aerojet proposing hydrogen oxygen, Bell proposing hydrogen fluorine, and Thiokol Reaction Motors Division proposing MMH/NTO for the GE entrant.

It's what D-2 (and most of the early Apollo proposals used).

The APAS-75 port, Is that new made or is it going to be using the Tantares port?

Quite a few of the MLV concepts surpass C-8 in payload capacity (MLV-SAT-V/4-260 for instance could lift almost double what C-8 could)

Some proposals had the Shuttle launch the Nerva engine like you said, some had the nuclear shuttle launched on a shuttle booster vehicle with expendable second stage, while others were simply just launching the entire partially fueled shuttle onboard INT-21, or a fully fueled shuttles on an uprated Saturn, though I have not read into which one (if any) was the one that was moved forward with.