Jump to content

Pappystein

Members
  • Posts

    1,912
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Pappystein

  1. Q&D: Why Saturn I is such a dog. Short version here, I may cover this with an in-depth historical article later. Saturn I was optimized for the 220" S-IV stage with 4x RL10-B-3 Engines which never materialized. (see my Saturn C-2 article for a photo of the mockup!) Saturn I lost optimization by switching from 220" 4 RL10-B-3 Engines to 240" 6 RL10-A-3S engines. But it was close to original performance, just more mass at launch. Saturn I lost a significant amount of Optimization by switching to the 260" S-IVB stage. Again stage for stage the S-IVB is more effective than either the B-3 or A-3S powered S-IV stages.... in orbit. But these stages burn in Atmosphere too.... loosing some of their efficiencies. The Change to the S-IVB was not intended for Saturn I, but was a consequence of the design changes to the Apollo capsule that increased it's required "throw" weight. Had Saturn I received the as designed 220" S-IV, the origional, as designed CSM stack should have been orbit-able with ease. How NASA "fixed" Saturn with each upgrade. Starting with the change from S-I to S-IB NASA was able to strip mass off of the S-I stage. Each Successive Saturn IB launch seems to be listed with a slightly lighter empty mass than the one before it. (a few pounds, not enough we can granularity represent in KSP!) The H-1 engines for the S-IB were constantly being "up-thrusted" throughout the launch cadence. Each successive Saturn I launch seems to have had some buff to engine thrust on the H-1s over the flight before it. EXCEPTION the final Skylab & Soyuz flights. I want to be clear here, when I say Up-thrusted. We are talking much like what was done on the Space Shuttle 20-30 years latter. They rated the engines higher than their designed performance. Once enough testfires/flights were made at these higher thrusts we see a new standard arrive. That is why the H-1C/D are the last H-1 models you see even though all Saturn Rockets flew on H-1C/H-1Ds. and they had two "official" performance standards. Again this is something that is hard to represent granularity in KSP. We don't have the ability to go past 100% thrust. Now all of the above is just off the top of my head, I am not using any of my vast sources to put this together right now. Just wanted a quick and timely response to the "Saturn Flight issues"
  2. you CAN orbit a Saturn I or IB rocket in KSRSS 2.5 and reborn with Mechjeb and standard assent. Start the turn at 4km and set the curve to 85% and set the end altitude at least 10km ABOVE your intended orbit! I have never gotten PVG to work but I know Zorg and others have done it with repeatable results. Now admittedly I am using the Pafftek BDB Hypergolic fuel (shameless plug, I did make it!... with help!) patch but that actually INCREASES the mass slightly but not using anything like SNACKS. But I will re-iterate I don't use Any sort of LifeSupport mod because all of them FAIL to allow historical craft to work "historically" IE they are not great simulations. They are great additions to your problem/workflow but not great simulations of life. Just my opinion. That being said Saturn IB is a bit of a dog. The problem isn't the BDB teams fault... it is the fact that NASA really didn't ever intend to use them so they never really optimized them. The plan for further use of the Saturn I rockets was basically altered dramatically by a combination of Apollo 1, Nixon and the War in Vietnam. Had any one of those three not been "running" then likely we would have either seen the 5 Engine Saturn S-1B stage replacement (1 F-1 + 4 H-1s.) OR the Monohull I joke about above OR the H-2 engine (which is just an H-1 engine with a major upgrade to the turbopump and plumbing in general.) Or a combination of any of the three... you choose. You want super spicy? Go F-1A with 4x H-2s We can sort of do the F-1/4H-1 build now. We can do H-2 engines now......
  3. 100% Totally Joking here... Bring on the Saturn C-2 Monohull S-1M first stage. There is no excuse in failing to orbit then. It has significantly less mass than revenge of cluster Juno V stage and gee gollie has the same fuel load (assuming both stock and a 15" stretch exist... just stock would be less than normal fuel) AGAIN THIS IS A JOKE!
  4. Since I went through the effort to to FOIA a couple of the documents that Senator Wolf's efforts got expunged.... Some Facts: 1) NASA is not likely to re-institute most of these documents that were purged to the PUBLIC NTRS servers. They, the documents, are actually considered proprietary information for Contractor X Y And Z by NASA of today. Regardless of the fact that the documents were prepared on contract for NASA and are reports TO NASA. 2) If A document on the list of purged documents is not available on NTRS today And is a NASA Created document, a simple request *should* get it re-instated. Worst comes to worst a FOIA request. This is how I got the drawings and information for my Saturn C-II and C-III article. TL:DR and my opinions version: NASA has seemed to have a shift in their relationships with various historical or current contractors. A lot of documents that were purged in 2012, are documents that NASA considers "not theirs to disseminate." For example, I requested EVERY Saturn C-II document that was purged in 2012. I was given access to one (which is now again on the NTRS Public servers!) I had multiple phone-calls and e-mails over my FOIA request. I was told point blank that the documents by TRW, Boeing, Lockheed etc were all owned by their respective companies and were not shareable even under FOIA. Given these were contracted reports **TO** NASA I think we can agree this was a load of Bull excrement. That being said, the overview from Marshal Space Flight center was the main document I wanted so I jumped at the chance of getting that and not fighting further. Now me reading between the lines here: NTRS servers are divided into PUBLIC and CONTRACTOR/Government side servers. Any company NASA works with has access (with a clearance program) to the CONTRACTOR side of the NTRS server. All the documents that we lost access to thanks to Senator Wolf, STILL EXIST. They are just on the Contractor only side. Getting contractor created documents released publicly will be like pulling teeth but it probably CAN be done. Actually NASA origin documents being much easier (and less costly) to free than documents from say Bell Aircraft on Lunar launch configuration feasibility or whatever. I BELIEVE this is also why many of the documents do not exist on Archive.org or other sites.
  5. Love the Kitbash... wanted to point something out. That is a not a Titan 23D, rather it is a never flown hybrid between the 23D and the 34D... It is the long tanks from the Titan IIIM/Titan 34 family line but it still uses UA-1205 SRMs (not the 5.5 segment UA-1206.) I have seen this spelled out in exactly one document and I would not consider it a RELIABLE source. But to see it here leads credence to that source. I never covered it in my Titan articles because, to put it bluntly, the source was highly questionable. Problem... I no longer have the source (as I considered it un-reliable and made up.) gah!
  6. It is amazing how all the BDB team's foil work has improved over the past 2 or 3 years. These parts look AMAZING Invaderchaos! While I am not a HUGE historical probe player (I like to Lego my own things together for the most part) These are some grade A+ parts! It is just too bad there isn't a way to get the Satelite bus itself to track the Sun for the fixed Solar panels
  7. Yeah, Connected Living Space requires patches to be correct for each and every part. If the part in question is not patched for CLS then you will get your Kerbals stuck. I tend to not use mods like CLS because of this. Sure, it isn't "realistic" but mods like CLS and any Lifesupport... really are not either (Lifesuport mods always adds too much mass to the craft compared to IRL.) They just add more problems for you to solve. I just use my own knowledge NOT to transfer Kerbals though a Gemini Nosecone!
  8. Honestly, Even without the KH-10G, a 1.5-0.9375 cone that has an interface node for an inter-stage would be grand for Agena... a 1.875-1.5m Agena containing inter-stage would be duck soup on top of that. From there it would be easy to transition to a KH-10G or whatever down the line.
  9. That sounds like you are using Connected Living space. Or a similar mod that restricts travel through parts that a Kerbal (or Human since these are great replicas) shouldn't be able to get through. By Default without such mods I can get around all the Station parts (I have built some doozie stations. HOWEVER/CAVEAT I have not used them in the last Dev Cycle and a half.
  10. 8096C (1st edition) and 8096L (which is closer to the BDB 8096C) were from time to time depicted with a side folding bell. This was A) not always the case and B) of dubious seal capability. 8096C in most documents is the highest thrust version of the 8096... except 2 prominent documents... where 8096L is not mentioned and the 8096C designated rocket is basically the 8096L. Since these were just conceptual and not actually ordered... IDK who is right... We got what we got so that is what we got **Side note, Not even Wikipedia's English entry for the Bell XLR-81 family mentions the 8096C!** Incidentally somewhere in my agena Documentation, I have a 150:1 and a 200:1 bell drawing for the 8096 as well! IIRC the BDB one is 100:1? Also I noticed this was not on the Agena Evo drawings but most shuttle Agena drawings for the standard Agena D derived Shuttle Agena show the RCS system spaced off the aft rack by 10-20 inches. That gives a greater thrust(mass) movement arm and thus more rotational torque about all 3 main axis.
  11. HA! I already put standard Agena on top of MX It is a great LKO (well LEO now that I am using KSRSS 2.5) small sat launcher with a low cost. BUT in all seriousness, the MX especially but even Castor 120 would have a hard time lifting a useful payload with a 1.5m Agena Evo. I find myself equipping boosters to the first stage when launching an Ascent Agena Bus satellite. MX has a high Acceleration for the first half of the 1st stage but the 2nd half is much lower by comparison and it is easier to get to less than 1:1 TWR with Agena on top.
  12. Sorry just edited my post further Yes it would be another custom diameter... or it could be Shrunk down to 1.5m. I am not proposing it be made for KSP to be clear. Just stating that is where the varying lengths come from for Agena Evo
  13. there was a 105" diameter Version and a 118" Diameter version. The 105" was longer... that would be about... 1.70m or 1.75m KSP scale I *THINK* (2.667m IRL) ***Folow-up Edit*** The 105" I believe was meant for a new launcher or a potential Thor based launcher (it is just a little bigger than the Thor's 8ft diameter) Sort of a replacement for Thorad? Not much is mentioned in the Shuttle Agena documents I have other than it was quickly eliminated as it did not gain an appreciable cargo volume in the shuttle bay (the payload would be almost as constrained in length as an Ascent Agena derived Shuttle Agena. Conversely the 118" version was significantly shorter as to provide a much larger length of payload capability in a shuttle bay. In all the documents I have. WITH THE EXCEPTION of AGENA-C, I have never seen a document quote a different length for the 118" Agena Evo (the stage is titled "Evolutionary Agena" in every document... Agena Evo is just easier to say and NOT "BIG" or "FAT" since both of those were used by other companies on other products.) Agena C was never built, and beyond preliminary design of the tank, never actually designed. LSMC was trying to sell it instead of fix the problems with Agena A and B. The problem with Agena A and B was one of space in the GCU... This was fixed with the Analog-Digital GCU on Agena D. Agena C was a way for LSMC to get more volume in the GCU without an appreciable loss in performance. In the Agena NRO documents I acquired from the NRO for public release website, I found two references to the Agena C... one was a memo on why it was such a bad idea to reward Lockheed with another contract when they were not meeting production goals **Even with alternative fuel loads** (my emphasis.) Unsure what they meant... could be same tank with two different "fill levels" or it could be two different alternative fuels... or two completely different tanks (size and all.) The only thing known is the Agena C was to be a greater diameter and shorter length than Agena B. Agena C could have been 105" or it could have been 118-120". Just don't know with what I remember. Said documents are so poorly reproduced that I get a headache just trying to read one page.... So I haven't re-read them in a while. Also the 1974 Agena documents point out a 8" tank extension to allow for new fuel (MMH + HDA (AKA IRFNA-IV in Community Resources) .) Also noteworthy is the change to a more modern Aluminum Alloy... But back to Agena Evo, all the NASA documents on wide body Shuttle Agena from 1972 clearly state the 118" diameter version is the preferred option. The 1974 documents throw the SOT drop tank Agena into the mix and that is the preferred option with a future growth to a mostly Different Wide body Agena.
  14. Love the Flag. *FACEPALM* I am sitting on some other Big Agena Documents. ***EDIT, they are from the same series of reports*** Drawings are post Ascent Agena , but I also have some information on the proposed (and immediately ignored for GOOD REASONS) Agena C that LSM/LMS proposed to the USAF in lieu of fixing Agena A and B (Hence the GOOD REASONS) Fat Agena was basically MORPHED/CANCELED into the Bus for the KH-9 Hexagon (it isn't a true 1.875KSPm Agena but it is a direct technological, engineering and continuity descendant.)
  15. I have had SO MANY issues with these mods over the years (all the way back to the OG KJR by Ferram) that I just quit using them and have blanket stated that if I am using BDB, or any of the NearFuture part sets... ESP if I have Robotics or Docking ports. HARD PASS. I get that KJR in any form is easier than manually selecting all the "auto-struts" (what a bad name for that FWIW!) but the Auto Struts never break my Builds. KJR ALWAYS messes up for me. Everyone's mileage may vary but this has been over enough years that I just have to say no now.
  16. Zorg has already answered this but I thought I would throw this out as an opinion. IF you are only building "real" rockets then something like realFuels (any) or RO are great. However if you are going for "Lego-ability," which I am pretty certain BDB was built around, then you might be better off using BDB+Nertea's Cryotanks+ the Hypergolic BDB patch that is in the Extras (Shameless plug since I made it with significant help from Jso!) You get Hydrolox, Methalox, AZ50/NTO and standard LFO. Sure you are not using MMH+NTO or UDMH+WFNA but you are in the correct ballpark with these options. The reason I lean this way is because that is what most Rockets are. A series of interchangeable or semi-interchangeable parts. (Looking at you Saturn A and B series... Saturn Atlas Centaur go!) In the end, you have to do what you want/need,. Again, this is just my opinion as a player and Historian (and not a member of the BDB team!)
  17. Likely the B3 (XLR-119) then. Also thanks for the link to the full document (Archived now) Never going to get rid of the rage... Internet makes things too easy to make things up some times. And that is really my biggest problem. I know I am not perfect (I almost exclusively write from memory instead of reading each and every document every time I write something.) But at least I try to keep on the correct point. As I already stated, didn't read the last page of posts and spent two hours trying to NOT sound like the Angry Armchair NASA Historian! As an Asside, I think that is the most comprehensive review of the development of the S-IV stage I have done without getting into the technical minutia.... Might have to expand that into a new Historical article!
  18. The Question has already been answered... and I promise I won't try to growl this time with my response (it isn't you Galileo Chiu... it is the question and what causes everyone to ask it that I get angry about all the time.) So TL:DR Version: Direct Apollo was a Proof of concept to prove that DIRECT FLIGHTS WERE BAD! not just bad but REALLY OUTRAGEOUSLY STUPIDLY BAD! Long Version: The SUPPOSED Saturn C-8... is a study done as part of the Saturn C-2 and C-3 programs (and it is well documented in the 1960 documents.) It was a case study to show why Tinker-Toy, or more modernly LEGO, construction in Orbit was Cheaper and QUICKER. IE it would not have been until about 1971-72 that An Apollo Direct could have landed on the moon. That time line does not include time for any delays. The unknowns in Earth Orbit Construction vs the long Delay caused by a Direct rocket prompted the LOR decision which could be done on time and safer than either Direct or EOR/Tinker-Toy. For point of reference the Plan in until Early 1961 was to launch multiple Saturn Rockets with inline docking S-IVB stages. These S-IVB stages would be powered by a Slush-fuel Liquid Hydrogen and LOX. The stage was latter designated S-IVC when the idea was re-visited for the Eros and Mars flyby missions. Several of these stages (If I recall correctly 4) would fire off in series to launch a fully equipped Apollo Capsule and lander combination... (the Capsule was to land on the Moon.) Saturn S-IV stage sidetrack: About the time of the Apollo MLV program (1967-1969) a NASA document (Houston not MSFC) re-issued a drawing of the C-2 era Direct Apollo rocket and labeled it Saturn C-8. The document in question was part of a packet sent to the US Congress for information on alternative rockets to Saturn in the Post Lunar phase. Then in Nova 3rd Generation (yes there were THREE NOVA Programs!) someone threw said "Saturn Direct" study in and again labeled it as Saturn C-8. I can find no documents that Von Braun or MSFC actually submitted this idea. This is all followed up by modern internet sloppy documentation and miss-quoting by Astronautix doing another Great job of posting things without proper documentation and no real-world facts to stand on.... And then Astronautix quoting Wikipedia as a source when Wikipedia quotes Astronautix as a source... (it happens on many but not all of the Titan and Saturn Pages) There are three reasons the re-submitted Apollo direct does not make sense: Nova3G was supposed to be BIGGER than anything in the Saturn Structure of rockets could lift. I GUESS if you surrounded the Direct Apollo Saturn with 6x AJ-260s you MIGHT get ALMOST enough payload to orbit.... The Mission had changed but the stages stay the same... Not conducive to big lift to either Low orbit or escape trajectories Congress (and NASA!) wanted NEW technology... there was nothing NEW about Apollo Direct Ascent. It used Saturn Avionics, Engines, and structural design just made larger ad-nauseam Point 3 is the biggest sticking point to the whole argument that Apollo Direct Ascent was EVER meant to fly. ADA or renamed Saturn C-8 is the litmus test as to if a proposal is worthy of looking into or not for big Lunar or Interplanetary rockets. Nothing else. As an aside... when did Tinker toys go from all wood to all plastic?! I guess I should read all the posts before Writing a Novel answer eh? Impressed! What parts and engines did you end up using?
  19. Your question has already been answered but no one explained why. The simple answer is Hydrolox is both Lighter and more efficient, if the BDB Team were to convert the Hydrolox stages to LFO, the rocket those tanks and engines were designed for would be too heavy to fly following the rules of Stock (part mass and engine thrust both about 25% of real.)
  20. Sort-of. The AJ-260 is too short to reach the upper interestage of the S-IC stage... and the 3x AJ-260 would burn to long making the S-IC stage nearly superfluous. So instead, they used the 2x AJ-260 length (the long length we have in BDB) and added an addendum LFO tank on top of it to create the structural connection to the structural top of the S-IC... and provide a little more fuel and thus burn time to the S-IC stage.
  21. Flown any P-40 Warhawks or A-10 Thunderbolt ][s recently Zorg? ***SO SHARKY*** Ugh! ***NOT Sharky!*** Seriously Thanks for the Decals!
  22. A) I still can't believe this is a project that is being undertaken it looks amazing and I know you probably feel it is just over half done! B) Have an odd-ball but hopefully an easy request. Any chance of 6.25, and 4.25m Heat shields for Recoverable Saturn stages? I am tempted to just create re-scales of either the Gemini or Big-G Heat shields but thought I would put this up on the "part potential Radar" as potential quick and easy part fodder. (gosh I hope those would be quick and easy!) I know this has already been specifically answered... it is your Life Support mod. All Life Support mods seem to think "ADD A TON OF MASS" = Good Life Support (I haven't found one that DIDN'T add a crap ton of mass that was already on the base spaceship parts.) I stopped using LS mods because every one of them breaks the game balance in a NEGATIVE way (ok yeah that is my opinion.) In fictional craft you may not see this... But in historically accurate ones... that are modeled as close to realism as the BDB team shoots for.... Well you can clearly see the problem.
×
×
  • Create New...