DaveyJ576

Thank you for the consideration. On a semi-related note, how is the Oscar-1 sub-satellite supposed to be attached to the Agena? It does not have a built-in decoupler, and I can't seem to get any of the other decouplers to surface attach to the Agena A/B equipment rack. The equipment rack itself also does not have a side decoupler. It is distinctly possible that I am missing something obvious, but I am scratching my head on this one.

Hey @Invaderchaos, excellent work as always. Thank you. One note to other users… make sure that you make the AlternateXLR81Textures and the RedstoneAlternateTextures folders a sub-folder under Bluedog_DB_Extras. If not, you will get B9PS errors about not finding the new textures. Since you seem to be in the texturing mood, how about this alternate one for Mercury Redstone-1? Admittedly its a bit niche, but pretty cool nonetheless. Either way, thanks for all the attention to detail. I appreciate it.

Very nice and well done! I suck at flying manually so I use MechJeb. You seem to have done well with it. What kind of orbital parameters did you get? Stock Kerbin or 2.5/2.7x KSRSS or JNSQ? May I make some suggestions for enhancements? Forgive me if you already know about these. 1. Conformal Decals - This mod adds a lot of cool text and flag graphics that will let you dress up your Juno I to near-historical accuracy. 2. Modular Launch Pads - You can build some nice launch pads and towers with this. Very historically immersive. 3. Dock Rotate Mod. - In theory this lets you spin up the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th stages while still on the launch pad, like they did IRL. I have never been able to get it to work correctly, so I just use a spin motor decoupler to get the 2nd stage to spin on release. Von Braun designed the upper stages to spin in order to keep them stable in case one or more of the solids burned off-nominal. Just make sure you disengage SAS before lighting the spin motor decoupler.

Perhaps... but Flat Jeb is sure to take a ride on Viking!

Thank you for the consideration. No problem. Very happy with your other planned upgrades.

Excellent! Glad to see the symmetrical avionics side pods for the A/B/C versions. Is the early Atlas A long skirt variant part of the plan?

I am not on the dev team so I can’t answer that. All of my stuff is kitbashed.

Please check out several posts on page 1175 for an answer. Vanguard and Scout are finicky beasts, but they will get you to orbit.

I was web surfing the other day and came across this page from a French astronautics forum: https://www.forum-conquete-spatiale.fr/t17935-evolution-du-lem-apollo-au-1-48eme-scratch-par-tezio?highlight=Evolution It is probably the best recounting of the Apollo LM evolution that I have seen in one place. This guy does some excellent modeling work. It would be really cool if some of this could be eventually incorporated into BDB2. I especially like the NASA 62, Von Braun 62, Grumman 62 "Bug" (currently available in the Alternate Apollo mod, but needs some TLC), and the Grumman 63A and 63B models. As a kid I remember seeing many of these designs in books so I would be great to run alternate Apollo missions using these designs that never flew. There is also a glorious full color rendering of the direct ascent Apollo spacecraft in landing mode. This could be flown on BDB Saturn V upgrades. No need to have the dreaded "rocket that shall not be named". Yes, I know these designs didn't fly for good reasons, but when did that ever stop a KSP modder? LOL Dev team, there is no need to spend your time on this stuff now, but perhaps it could be added to the list of cool stuff for the KSP2 rework. Thanks!

The black terrain is present only in Hangar Extender when I switch to the “outside” view.

@Alpha512, @OrbitalManeuvers, @Queen UltimaBelow are some screenshots from my INT-20 build. I will amend an item that I mentioned previously... the S-IC is only partially filled. Sorry for the mis-statement. Also, I mentioned previously that it "leaped off the pad". Admittedly, that was a bit of enthusiastic hyperbole, as it does rise rather slowly at first. But to my eyes the rate of rise is actually fairly realistic, close to what I remember the Saturn V having for the lunar missions. To be clear, I am using standard F-1s, but with a J-2S on the S-IVB. All tanks are standard length. The payload for these screenshots is exactly what I had for the original post on page 1187, Orbital SM, Block III CM, Tweakscaled Gigantor array in the SIM Bay, four astros, plus LM Lab. By chance, are you guys using any mod that adds consumables or food? I have heard that those mods tend to add a lot of weight to the command pod. I hope this helps.

Without more specifics about your mod list, it will be hard to say. I am a poor one to assess that, but post it and perhaps someone else can find the conflict. All I can say is that my INT-20 flies like a dream.

I would say that something is amiss. See my post on page 1187. I routinely fly a three F-1 (not F-1A) INT-20 with an orbital version CSM and a payload in the SLA and the thing leaps off the pad! Full fuel load in both the S-1C and the S-IVB. I use KSRSS at 2.5x scale. It has superior performance all around, easily outclassing the Saturn IB. I am really not sure what is going on in your case. You should be getting great performance.

Hey! Glad you are back in the game. This is an awesome mod that adds immeasurably to the immersive quality of the game. I thought I would share some pictures of kitbash changes that I made. This is an overview. I am going for a mid to late 60's feel. I have all of the Titan/Atlas pads active, along with most of the Redstone/Jupiter/Delta pads to the south. I added the KSC industrial area, and the admin area south of LC-39. I built out a reasonable facsimile of LC-37 too. The southern pads: LC-5/6, LC-26A & B, LC-17A &B, and LC-18A & B. I stayed with a single pad for LC-36. Another one would not quite fit if I wanted LC-3 and 4. All Atlas and Titan pads are active. The first shot is the KSC industrial area. Yeah I know the windmill isn't historical, but it looks cool! The 2nd shot is LC-37. It was a bit of a challenge, but both pads are active. It would be really nice to have a proper truss-style service structure for this pad so that we don't have to use the Titan one. The northern pads, LC-40 and 41, and LC-39 are essentially unchanged from the mod, but I have plans to add pad 39C to the north.

Nice work! It is a bit freaky flying the Gemini into that nose for docking. I always thought that “space garage” concept was very innovative, but pressing and depressing such a large volume would have used up a lot of air, complicating the logistics chain.

FYI, on my Saturn III build I had to add a spacer between the top of the S-IVB and the IU. My LM Lab design has a Coatl science boom that projects pretty far downwards when it is retracted. Without the spacer it would clip the top of the S-IVB hydrogen tank. The spacer solved the problem. For any other mission you wouldn't need it.

Nice design, but this violates advantage #3 above. Titan 3, Delta 4H, and Falcon Heavy all had to have the core booster airframe essentially rebuilt when the side boosters were added. This rebuild adds considerable cost and time, and forces you to build two versions of the same rocket so that the non-boosted versions can be optimized. Perhaps in your particular case you could go to a four F-1 variant and subsequently shut down two in order to avoid surpassing the airframe G limits (roughly 4 Gs). As a side note, as I understand it, the hoped for role of the INT-20 (my Saturn III) was LEO access for manned Apollo spacecraft to Skylabs and for other science missions. Anything beyond that, either for heavy lift to LEO or to beyond LEO missions you could use Saturn V or one of the other existing rockets (Titan 3, Atlas Centaur, Delta, etc.). NASA wanted to shut down a production line and save all the associated costs. For that reason, in my opinion, Saturn IB and any associated variants had a target painted on them. Perhaps if Chrysler had a really, really strong lobby in Congress... maybe it would have been saved. But I think not.

SATURN IB REPLACEMENT? For the record, I want to state that I really like the Saturn IB. It is one of the coolest rockets ever, and iconic to boot. The IB and it's older brother the Saturn I hold a special place in U.S. rocket history and for good reason. However... It was not optimal. No respectable rocket engineer () would deliberately design a rocket with clustered tanks. No less than Werner Von Braun himself once testified before a Congressional committee that it was an engineering compromise, and if conditions had been different, it would not have been built that way. Its whole reason for being was to get a large powerful launcher built as quickly and cheaply as possible, hence the concept of using tank construction based on existing smaller designs and clustering them together. The biggest drawback is greatly increased weight, with reduced performance when compared to a comparable mono-tank design. In most reasonably realistic alternate history scenarios, the existence of the Saturn IB is a given. So the real question is, assuming that some sort of Apollo/Saturn/Skylab program continued beyond what historically happened, what do you do for a follow-on medium lift, man rated rocket? 12 complete Saturn IB vehicles had been built under the original contract, so when all of these had been used what do you do then? It makes little sense to continue to produce what is essentially an engineering kludge. Making the assumption that financial concerns would continue to dominate any post-Apollo planning, I would like to present what I consider to be the best option available to NASA in the late 1960's and early 1970's. It is none other than the Saturn INT-20, which I will refer to as the Saturn III. Specifically, the three F-1 engine variant (hence the name Saturn III) that could put 78,000 lbs. (35,380 kg) into a 185 km orbit. This is roughly twice the payload of the last version of the Saturn IB, eliminating a huge gap in capability. The four and five engine variants are overpowered and would require the shutting down of multiple F-1 engines before staging, requiring that you haul dead weight uphill. This rocket has several distinct advantages over other Saturn variants for the LEO mission: No new hardware needs to be developed. Everything already exists. No new engine development is needed. No heavy and time-consuming modifications to the S-IC are needed to accommodate solid or liquid boosters. The only changes to the S-IC are removing equipment like engine plumbing, and external fairings, and blanking off engine openings. Some software revisions would be necessary but would be minimal. Some aerodynamic testing would be required, but would also be minimal. Changes to the MLP are minimal, requiring only the removal of unnecessary hold-downs and piping. The single biggest change would be shortening the LUT, but this simply requires removing some arms and removing the S-II section. Yes, I know that is more complicated than I have made it sound, but no new hardware needs to be developed. The ability to haul hefty payloads (i.e. LM Lab or Skylab resupply modules) in the SLA, along with a full Block 2 CSM (still short fueled) is now possible. From start of the project to first flight would probably be about one year. The pacing item would be the work to shorten the LUT. The prime contenders for a competitor to the Saturn III are the INT-19, aka Saturn II (S-II + S-IVB plus solid boosters) and the Saturn IB-C or IB-D (Saturn IB with Minuteman or Titan solid boosters). These rockets would have violated most, if not all of the points listed above. Specifically, any of these alternatives would have required substantial and expensive changes to the launch mount/MLP and the LUT to accommodate the solid boosters, and an extensive reworking of the basic airframe in order to handle the side loads imparted on the first stage by the boosters. You also accept all of the negative performance and safety issues of using SRBs with a manned launcher. So that is my case for the Saturn III as a mid-1970s replacement for the Saturn IB. I like the Eyes Turned Skyward Saturn IC, but it would have required an extensive R&D program with new stages, new GSE and launch pads, and new spacecraft. I think the Saturn III is more realistic given the political and financial environment facing NASA in the 1970s. And it looks cool! Saturn III is a handy and versatile launcher and I flew the below mission with it. First stage uphill flight, staging, and second stage push to orbit. Pitch down to hit orbital parameters, and stable orbit at 250km. Payload extraction and orbital operations. This flight uses what I call the Block 2B CSM. It uses the five man CM, along with a Tweakscaled roll out Gigantor solar array in the otherwise empty SIM bay. The LM Lab has a lot of greebles on it, and is intended for Earth observations. I flew four crew on this mission, pilot, engineer, & two scientists. I did fly a J-2S on the 2nd stage and standard F-1's on the first stage. If I upgraded to F-1A's my payload capacity increases. I used MechJeb PVG to a 250 km orbit. 2.5x KSRSS Earth. Upon SECO I had roughly 8% fuel remaining in the S-IVB. Max acceleration was 3.2 Gs, well within real life tolerances. It flew like a dream. It is so cool to be able to fly these type of hypothetical missions with BDB. I would like to extend my personal thanks to @CobaltWolfand the entire dev team for all of the hard work.

Excellent! Thank you.

Here is my Saturn II flight. I flew it to a nice 250 km orbit with MechJeb on classic ascent profile with plenty of fuel in the S-IVB remaining. I had no issues with roll, yaw, or pitch control. Your problem may be coming from a setting in the PAWs shown below: Make sure the button for Gimbal is set to "Free". Hope this helps!

It is my experience that both the UA1205 solids and the J-2s have thrust vectoring. I have built and flown a Saturn II and had no problems with it. Please provide more specifics.

Please be a lot more specific in describing your problem. It is very hard to answer your question without asking a lot of our own. Without specific details of what is happening no one will be able to help you..

@tony48What orbital altitude is geosynchronous on a 2.5x Earth? Thank you.

@Blufor878 AAP Telescope Mount at the wet workshop, along with an attached Goo Lab. This was a dual rendezvous mission. I first launched the workshop on a Saturn IB, then the unmanned ATM on another IB, then the CSM on a third. Rendezvoused and docked with the ATM, then performed the second rendezvous with the workshop. It was a bit of an orbital ballet, but I got it done! The Goo Lab was brought up on a separate Saturn IB/CSM launch.

Essentially what you have built is the original design for the Apollo Telescope Mount. It is generally depicted with four Skylab style fold out solar arrays. It could fly as a stand alone mission launched separately from the CSM on its own Saturn IB. Alternately the CSM could fly it to a Wet Workshop where one of the crew could dock it to the space facing (dorsal) docking port, to be operated in conjunction with the Wet Workshop.