[1.12.5] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.13.0 "Забытый" 13/Aug/2023)

[lemon cup]

17 hours ago, Pappystein said:

The S-IV stage is actually powered by the RL-10-A-3S (S denoting Saturn as in the computer hookups.)

Excellent to hear that from you! So the RL10A-3 is the correct model, good to know I guessed it right 

4 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

What about a modest stretch to both stages? Does that help or cause TWR issues?

Oh I will have to do some more testing to iron that out but my trajectory didn’t help. Low TWR on the S-IV stage is the main challenge so the rocket should have been more lofted than usual, but I started out too shallow and had to pitch up quite a bit for a while, killing efficiency.

A modest stretch on the first stage would help but I leaned away from that for authenticity.

 

[CobaltWolf]

2 minutes ago, lemon cup said:

Excellent to hear that from you! So the RL10A-3 is the correct model, good to know I guessed it right 

Oh I will have to do some more testing to iron that out but my trajectory didn’t help. Low TWR on the S-IV stage is the main challenge so the rocket should have been more lofted than usual, but I started out too shallow and had to pitch up quite a bit for a while, killing efficiency.

A modest stretch on the first stage would help but I leaned away from that for authenticity.

Yeah, Saturn 1 is kind of weird? It feels like more of an engineering demonstration/test vehicle than a real rocket. I feel like if was shifted into being used operationally, there'd be some changes to optimize the TWR/burn times of the stages.

[MoeKitsune]

I've been playing with the beta of a new tech tree mod (Skyhawk Science System) and I've noticed that the included contracts assume that stock techs are left intact, but this specific tech tree mod doesn't do that. This may be a dumb question, but would it be possible to have the contracts check if certain parts are unlocked instead of a certain tech node?

Edited December 7, 2021 by MoeKitsune

[Pappystein]

10 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

I believe the gimbal actuators+mountings were also different. I'm inferring that from the Delta/HOSS proposal, which specifically notes that hardware being shared with the S-IV but not Centaur.

Well my document did say "interface."  I could have misunderstood.  

[Pappystein]

5 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Yeah, Saturn 1 is kind of weird? It feels like more of an engineering demonstration/test vehicle than a real rocket. I feel like if was shifted into being used operationally, there'd be some changes to optimize the TWR/burn times of the stages.

Yeah, Juno V was at best an "Expedient" rocket and not a "Optimized Design."    DARPA had limited funds and lofty goals in 1958.

Saturn S-IB is an "Optimized Expedient" rocket.     And both suffer from not having the Original spec engines (4 or 5x E-1s).    The S-IB is BARELY optimized.    I mean it is a few thousand pounds lighter than S-I but it is still in-efficient. 

Juno V is a crash program from the "Missile gap."   Short version, the only goal of Juno V what latter became the first stage of Saturn I and IB, was to crank out a stage capable of X pounds of payload to space.   No thought to optimization and no thought to longer term.   Hence all the concepts latter for mono-hull S-I stages etc...   Much of what culminated in the Alt History described in ETS.

Given the Lack of growth potential in the base H-1 engine.... even in it's ultimate form (RS-27,) it was not really the engine that Juno V was conceived for.  As I covered a couple months ago, The only reason the E-1 was not developed is because of the uncertainty of NASA and the future budgets needed to complete it's development.      With E-1 engines the Saturn I rocket is not a total pig.   It is still an in-efficient rocket... but much more usable.

 

The end result is a barely capable rocket, in some ways.   While I still question some of the numbers associated with it, at best it is a pig... sometimes a good pig, sometimes good enough of a pig... but a pig none the less.

 

 

[Jcking]

58 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

The only reason the E-1 was not developed is because of the uncertainty of NASA and the future budgets needed to complete it's development.      With E-1 engines the Saturn I rocket is not a total pig.   It is still an in-efficient rocket... but much more usable.

Unless NASA was doing something with E-1 outside of ABMA, E-1 for Saturn died as a result of a recommendation from ARPA on July of 1958 to ABMA to swap the 4 E-1s, with available Jupiter engines and cancel the 60 million dollar development program for E-1.
 

Also on a side note, Saturn System Study II discussed several options to increase the S-I first stage thrust from 1.5 million lbs to 2 million lbs and came up with the following: increase the amount of H-1 engines from 8 to 10 and run them at 200k lbs thrust, replace the inboard H-1 engines with one F-1, and replace all H-1 engines with the H-2 engine (described as a 250k thrust engine with growth to 300k and incorporating the Mark XIV turbopump).

Edited December 7, 2021 by Jcking

[Invaderchaos]

This is getting real spicy (no specular or normals yet, just base texture. but still cool)

Edited December 7, 2021 by Invaderchaos

[Pappystein]

2 hours ago, Jcking said:

Unless NASA was doing something with E-1 outside of ABMA, E-1 for Saturn died as a result of a recommendation from ARPA on July of 1958 to ABMA to swap the 4 E-1s, with available Jupiter engines and cancel the 60 million dollar development program for E-1.
 

Also on a side note, Saturn System Study II discussed several options to increase the S-I first stage thrust from 1.5 million lbs to 2 million lbs and came up with the following: increase the amount of H-1 engines from 8 to 10 and run them at 200k lbs thrust, replace the inboard H-1 engines with one F-1, and replace all H-1 engines with the H-2 engine (described as a 250k thrust engine with growth to 300k and incorporating the Mark XIV turbopump).

Yeah sorry I said that poorly.     DARPA suggested the switch because THEY were uncertain what would happen with NASA budgets... and they had the funding needed to upgrade the LR79 into the H-1 engine available right then.

 

[Morphisor]

6 hours ago, MoeKitsune said:

I've been playing with the beta of a new tech tree mod (Skyhawk Science System) and I've noticed that the included contracts assume that stock techs are left intact, but this specific tech tree mod doesn't do that. This may be a dumb question, but would it be possible to have the contracts check if certain parts are unlocked instead of a certain tech node?

Not a dumb question at all, in fact that is indeed possible. I chose to use tech tree nodes as unlock requirements instead to allow players to be creative with what parts they use for the contracts (the majority of experiments is available on multiple parts).

Even if I set it to unlock at a specific part, players may end up not being able to do the contract as the parts of for instance OGO or Nimbus are spread out across multiple nodes, especially in tech tree mods like that. Also, requiring a part unlock may for some players 'hide' the contract since it wouldn't be available until the part is actually purchased for use (the first time 'development' unlock you do in career).

The good news is that it's pretty easy to write a MM patch to change the requirements to match the tech tree. I highly recommend this to be done from the tech tree side, in fact I wrote exactly such a patch for Tetrix tech tree myself last weekend. Skyhawk should be able to copy it over and adjust accordingly.

[CessnaSkyhawk]

16 hours ago, MoeKitsune said:

I've been playing with the beta of a new tech tree mod (Skyhawk Science System) and I've noticed that the included contracts assume that stock techs are left intact, but this specific tech tree mod doesn't do that. This may be a dumb question, but would it be possible to have the contracts check if certain parts are unlocked instead of a certain tech node?

 

9 hours ago, Morphisor said:

Not a dumb question at all, in fact that is indeed possible. I chose to use tech tree nodes as unlock requirements instead to allow players to be creative with what parts they use for the contracts (the majority of experiments is available on multiple parts).

Even if I set it to unlock at a specific part, players may end up not being able to do the contract as the parts of for instance OGO or Nimbus are spread out across multiple nodes, especially in tech tree mods like that. Also, requiring a part unlock may for some players 'hide' the contract since it wouldn't be available until the part is actually purchased for use (the first time 'development' unlock you do in career).

The good news is that it's pretty easy to write a MM patch to change the requirements to match the tech tree. I highly recommend this to be done from the tech tree side, in fact I wrote exactly such a patch for Tetrix tech tree myself last weekend. Skyhawk should be able to copy it over and adjust accordingly.

I'll be taking a look at this issue sometime in the next few days - I figured it'd be pretty straightforward to do, so I'm glad to hear that's the case.

[Morphisor]

1 hour ago, CessnaSkyhawk said:

 

I'll be taking a look at this issue sometime in the next few days - I figured it'd be pretty straightforward to do, so I'm glad to hear that's the case.

You should be able to copy patches from Tetrix and apply the corresponding node names. Let me know if I can be of help.

[DaveyJ576]

The fall of 1963 was an important one for Gemini. The program was struggling with the paraglider, and most importantly the Titan II launch vehicle was experiencing a lot of teething problems, not the least of which was a severe longitudinal oscillation known as pogo. Test flights were experiencing a pogo rate well above what NASA felt was safe for astronauts. The Air Force's Ballistic Systems Division (BSD) didn't care much about solving the pogo issue, because as long as the pogo was not affecting the performance of the missile in its mission of delivering a nuclear warhead (it wasn't), the Air Force had little incentive to spend time and money correcting the issue. Indeed, the BSD was worried that working on the pogo issue may actually delay the introduction of the missile into active service, and they heavily resisted doing anything about it. NASA also had some valid concerns about combustion instability in the 2nd stage engine, and overall parts and manufacturing reliability. The Titan II had only a 50% end to end reliability record to that point. NASA was so worried that in October 1963 they initiated a study to look at the feasibility of shifting the launch vehicle to the already flown and tested Saturn I.

Some very high level meetings and discussions took place between the BSD and NASA and the bureaucratic log jam was cleared. The Air Force intransigence melted away and thy began to incorporate the recommended pogo suppression equipment in some of the test missiles. In November 1963 they had a full up success with the test flight of missile N-25. The issues were all then quickly resolved and the Titan II turned in sterling service to both NASA and the Air Force.

But let's say for the moment that NASA got spooked by the Titan problems and actually shifted Gemini to launch on the Saturn I. Here is my interpretation of how that would look:

Spoiler

The design of the Gemini spacecraft and the adaptor section was already well along in the fall of 1963. A sudden shift to the Saturn I would have most likely resulted in something of a jury rig when it came to fitting the spacecraft to the S-IV, although this Delta adaptor works quite well in game. Changing the spacecraft adaptor section and all of its internal systems would have resulted in an unwarranted delay. Also, the much greater explosive power of the Saturn I while sitting fueled on the pad would have necessitated the switch to a LES. The ejection seats already fitted would not have gotten the crew far enough away from the fireball. The added complexity of the LES would have been offset by the removal of the ejection seats, gaining quite a bit of space inside the already crowded spacecraft interior. 

The book On the Shoulders of Titans: A History of Project Gemini by Barton C. Hacker and James Grimwood, gives a great explanation of the issues surrounding the Titan II, but unfortunately does not provide a lot of details about how the Saturn I would have been configured for Gemini. We can only wonder...

[Pappystein]

20 hours ago, Jcking said:

Also on a side note, Saturn System Study II discussed several options to increase the S-I first stage thrust from 1.5 million lbs to 2 million lbs and came up with the following: increase the amount of H-1 engines from 8 to 10 and run them at 200k lbs thrust, replace the inboard H-1 engines with one F-1, and replace all H-1 engines with the H-2 engine (described as a 250k thrust engine with growth to 300k and incorporating the Mark XIV turbopump).

Hokey Pete!   I don't think that Ed Kyle has seen that report.   SpaceLaunchReport.com in the Atlas Section lists the H-2 as likely a type-o!   The same data card I posted about Centaur JR!

Even better, it  (the paper) was my NEXT paper to read from that Archive!

[pTrevTrevs]

2 hours ago, DaveyJ576 said:

The fall of 1963 was an important one for Gemini. The program was struggling with the paraglider, and most importantly the Titan II launch vehicle was experiencing a lot of teething problems, not the least of which was a severe longitudinal oscillation known as pogo. Test flights were experiencing a pogo rate well above what NASA felt was safe for astronauts. The Air Force's Ballistic Systems Division (BSD) didn't care much about solving the pogo issue, because as long as the pogo was not affecting the performance of the missile in its mission of delivering a nuclear warhead (it wasn't), the Air Force had little incentive to spend time and money correcting the issue. Indeed, the BSD was worried that working on the pogo issue may actually delay the introduction of the missile into active service, and they heavily resisted doing anything about it. NASA also had some valid concerns about combustion instability in the 2nd stage engine, and overall parts and manufacturing reliability. The Titan II had only a 50% end to end reliability record to that point. NASA was so worried that in October 1963 they initiated a study to look at the feasibility of shifting the launch vehicle to the already flown and tested Saturn I.

Some very high level meetings and discussions took place between the BSD and NASA and the bureaucratic log jam was cleared. The Air Force intransigence melted away and thy began to incorporate the recommended pogo suppression equipment in some of the test missiles. In November 1963 they had a full up success with the test flight of missile N-25. The issues were all then quickly resolved and the Titan II turned in sterling service to both NASA and the Air Force.

But let's say for the moment that NASA got spooked by the Titan problems and actually shifted Gemini to launch on the Saturn I. Here is my interpretation of how that would look:

  Hide contents

The design of the Gemini spacecraft and the adaptor section was already well along in the fall of 1963. A sudden shift to the Saturn I would have most likely resulted in something of a jury rig when it came to fitting the spacecraft to the S-IV, although this Delta adaptor works quite well in game. Changing the spacecraft adaptor section and all of its internal systems would have resulted in an unwarranted delay. Also, the much greater explosive power of the Saturn I while sitting fueled on the pad would have necessitated the switch to a LES. The ejection seats already fitted would not have gotten the crew far enough away from the fireball. The added complexity of the LES would have been offset by the removal of the ejection seats, gaining quite a bit of space inside the already crowded spacecraft interior. 

The book On the Shoulders of Titans: A History of Project Gemini by Barton C. Hacker and James Grimwood, gives a great explanation of the issues surrounding the Titan II, but unfortunately does not provide a lot of details about how the Saturn I would have been configured for Gemini. We can only wonder...

Ideal timeline.

[Spaceman.Spiff]

2 hours ago, DaveyJ576 said:

The fall of 1963 was an important one for Gemini. The program was struggling with the paraglider, and most importantly the Titan II launch vehicle was experiencing a lot of teething problems, not the least of which was a severe longitudinal oscillation known as pogo. Test flights were experiencing a pogo rate well above what NASA felt was safe for astronauts. The Air Force's Ballistic Systems Division (BSD) didn't care much about solving the pogo issue, because as long as the pogo was not affecting the performance of the missile in its mission of delivering a nuclear warhead (it wasn't), the Air Force had little incentive to spend time and money correcting the issue. Indeed, the BSD was worried that working on the pogo issue may actually delay the introduction of the missile into active service, and they heavily resisted doing anything about it. NASA also had some valid concerns about combustion instability in the 2nd stage engine, and overall parts and manufacturing reliability. The Titan II had only a 50% end to end reliability record to that point. NASA was so worried that in October 1963 they initiated a study to look at the feasibility of shifting the launch vehicle to the already flown and tested Saturn I.

Some very high level meetings and discussions took place between the BSD and NASA and the bureaucratic log jam was cleared. The Air Force intransigence melted away and thy began to incorporate the recommended pogo suppression equipment in some of the test missiles. In November 1963 they had a full up success with the test flight of missile N-25. The issues were all then quickly resolved and the Titan II turned in sterling service to both NASA and the Air Force.

But let's say for the moment that NASA got spooked by the Titan problems and actually shifted Gemini to launch on the Saturn I. Here is my interpretation of how that would look:

  Hide contents

The design of the Gemini spacecraft and the adaptor section was already well along in the fall of 1963. A sudden shift to the Saturn I would have most likely resulted in something of a jury rig when it came to fitting the spacecraft to the S-IV, although this Delta adaptor works quite well in game. Changing the spacecraft adaptor section and all of its internal systems would have resulted in an unwarranted delay. Also, the much greater explosive power of the Saturn I while sitting fueled on the pad would have necessitated the switch to a LES. The ejection seats already fitted would not have gotten the crew far enough away from the fireball. The added complexity of the LES would have been offset by the removal of the ejection seats, gaining quite a bit of space inside the already crowded spacecraft interior. 

The book On the Shoulders of Titans: A History of Project Gemini by Barton C. Hacker and James Grimwood, gives a great explanation of the issues surrounding the Titan II, but unfortunately does not provide a lot of details about how the Saturn I would have been configured for Gemini. We can only wonder...

That is quite the longboi

[biohazard15]

22 hours ago, Jcking said:

Also on a side note, Saturn System Study II discussed several options to increase the S-I first stage thrust from 1.5 million lbs to 2 million lbs and came up with the following: increase the amount of H-1 engines from 8 to 10 and run them at 200k lbs thrust, replace the inboard H-1 engines with one F-1, and replace all H-1 engines with the H-2 engine (described as a 250k thrust engine with growth to 300k and incorporating the Mark XIV turbopump).

Would be cool to get some of that into BDB!

- For 10x H-1, my best guess would be 4x inboard, 6x outboard. Not sure if they can fit, though (and giving the amount of work, most likely won't happen)

- H-2 - this is supposed to be H-1 with improved turbopump? If yes, then it could be added as Extras B9 patch for H-1.

- 4x H-1 and F-1 - now that would be a nice rocket, especially with stretched tanks and if you cut off F-1 during ascent. Most likely won't fit, though.

[GoldForest]

7 hours ago, biohazard15 said:

Would be cool to get some of that into BDB!

- For 10x H-1, my best guess would be 4x inboard, 6x outboard. Not sure if they can fit, though (and giving the amount of work, most likely won't happen)

- H-2 - this is supposed to be H-1 with improved turbopump? If yes, then it could be added as Extras B9 patch for H-1.

- 4x H-1 and F-1 - now that would be a nice rocket, especially with stretched tanks and if you cut off F-1 during ascent. Most likely won't fit, though.

Did a quick throw together of those two engine layout options.

Double 5 pointed star fits just fine. 

1+4 works fine as well, though the H-1s will be angled outwards. 

Your 4 + 6 ring works as well. 

Edited December 8, 2021 by GoldForest

[DaveyJ576]

9 hours ago, biohazard15 said:

Would be cool to get some of that into BDB!

- For 10x H-1, my best guess would be 4x inboard, 6x outboard. Not sure if they can fit, though (and giving the amount of work, most likely won't happen)

- H-2 - this is supposed to be H-1 with improved turbopump? If yes, then it could be added as Extras B9 patch for H-1.

- 4x H-1 and F-1 - now that would be a nice rocket, especially with stretched tanks and if you cut off F-1 during ascent. Most likely won't fit, though.

Would there be a point of diminishing return here? What I mean is that as you add engines you are also adding weight. The engine thrust structure would have to be beefed up, also adding weight. As we already know, the Saturn I and IB had a marginal TWR. So, adding engines may not have given you much, if any, added performance while adding a lot of complexity and weight. Werner Von Braun himself admitted that the Saturn I was an engineering compromise, a way to get a "heavy lift" rocket in the quickest possible time within the lowest possible budget. He admitted in an interview that I read (sorry, the exact reference is escaping me) that it was not an optimal design. Because of that I believe that NASA would not have built any more of them in any version, or continued to try to tinker with them. Had NASA continued to fly the Apollo Saturn system they would have most likely flown through the existing hardware and then replaced the Saturn IB with something else for the medium lift category, most likely the Saturn II or the INT-20.

I will admit that Lego-ing rockets is a lot of fun. My favorite Saturn IB variant is the four engine E-1 version. 

Edited December 8, 2021 by DaveyJ576
Added word

[Jcking]

2 hours ago, DaveyJ576 said:

Would there be a point of diminishing return here? What I mean is that as you add engines you are also adding weight. The engine thrust structure would have to be beefed up, also adding weight. As we already know, the Saturn I and IB had a marginal TWR. So, adding engines may not have given you much, if any, added performance while adding a lot of complexity and weight. Werner Von Braun himself admitted that the Saturn I was an engineering compromise, a way to get a "heavy lift" rocket in the quickest possible time within the lowest possible budget. He admitted in an interview that I read (sorry, the exact reference is escaping me) that it was not an optimal design. Because of that I believe that NASA would not have built any more of them in any version, or continued to try to tinker with them. Had NASA continued to fly the Apollo Saturn system they would have most likely flown through the existing hardware and then replaced the Saturn IB with something else for the medium lift category, most likely the Saturn II or the INT-20.

I will admit that Lego-ing rockets is a lot of fun. My favorite Saturn IB variant is the four engine E-1 version. 

A complete redesign of the Saturn S-I first stage was either strongly recommended, or required for all thrust increase options considered.

[DaveyJ576]

17 minutes ago, Jcking said:

A complete redesign of the Saturn S-I first stage was either strongly recommended, or required for all thrust increase options considered.

I have seen those statements numerous times in NASA documents. They give weight to Von Braun’s belief that the I/IB was an engineering compromise. A complete redesign would have given you a mono-tank vehicle very similar to what the creators of ETS came up with.

Most of the studies that advocated Saturn IB variants were efforts by Chrysler to convince NASA to keep the S-IB production line open, which is an obvious benefit to the company, but not necessarily a benefit to the program as a whole. 

[CobaltWolf]

2 hours ago, DaveyJ576 said:

Would there be a point of diminishing return here? What I mean is that as you add engines you are also adding weight. The engine thrust structure would have to be beefed up, also adding weight. As we already know, the Saturn I and IB had a marginal TWR. So, adding engines may not have given you much, if any, added performance while adding a lot of complexity and weight.

Yeah but any engines you add are going to increase your TWR, not lower it. Otherwise they're very bad engines Also worth noting that dry masses/mass ratios in KSP are far higher than they are IRL.

 

2 hours ago, DaveyJ576 said:

Had NASA continued to fly the Apollo Saturn system they would have most likely flown through the existing hardware and then replaced the Saturn IB with something else for the medium lift category, most likely the Saturn II or the INT-20.

29 minutes ago, DaveyJ576 said:

I have seen those statements numerous times in NASA documents. They give weight to Von Braun’s belief that the I/IB was an engineering compromise. A complete redesign would have given you a mono-tank vehicle very similar to what the creators of ETS came up with.

Most of the studies that advocated Saturn IB variants were efforts by Chrysler to convince NASA to keep the S-IB production line open, which is an obvious benefit to the company, but not necessarily a benefit to the program as a whole. 

My understanding is that was less of an issue with the Saturn 1B, and more that they wanted to cut down on the number of stages (and production facilities) they had to pay to keep open. Being able to fill some of the gap in payload between Saturn 1B and Saturn V was also a prime motivation, as you noted.

I'm not a rocket engineer, but I think y'all might be getting a bit too caught up on S-1 being "unoptimized". Lots of things aren't optimized. Everything is a compromise between performance, development cost, time, how easy it is to manufacture, etc. So the S-1's issues, I think, have been blown out of proportion as time has gone on. The S-1 was doing what it was meant to, and trying to switch to something like a monolithic tank would mean essentially starting over from scratch. I've seen a lot of stuff talking about upgrading the S-1 with stretches, boosters, etc. As @DaveyJ576 mentioned the S-1 uprating reports were all done by Chrysler. Fair enough, though as I understand it that's because NASA would have asked them to perform trade studies on their stage, same as they did for the contractors/stages in the Saturn V stack.
I have NEVER seen a proposal for replacing it with a monolithic tank, nor giving it an F-1 past the "F-1 + 4xH-1" arrangement mentioned in passing in Stages to Saturn. Remember that ETS is fairly unrealistic in that regard (frankly, the standards of writing and the sources available were just not the same back when it was written).

Another thing worth considering - (and this is my understanding) - the Saturns were set to see their prices drop DRAMATICALLY in any subsequent production runs. The facilities are all bought and paid for. The Instrument Unit in particular, originally a substantial fraction of a Saturn 1B's cost, would have been made significantly cheaper to fly.

With that said - yes, by the time you reach the "Shuttle Decision" as I call it, the Saturn 1B isn't even in the running anymore. It was basically between the Shuttle, some variant of Titan, or INT-20 for how to move forward. INT-20 would preserve more of the Saturn V manufacturing capability, had far higher payload, and didn't cost thaaaaaat much more.

[Spaceman.Spiff]

13 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

The S-1 was doing what it was meant to, and trying to switch to something like a monolithic tank would mean essentially starting over from scratch.

Smh just bolt two S-IVBs together 

[Jcking]

18 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

I have NEVER seen a proposal for replacing it with a monolithic tank, nor giving it an F-1 past the "F-1 + 4xH-1" arrangement mentioned in passing in Stages to Saturn. Remember that ETS is fairly unrealistic in that regard (frankly, the standards of writing and the sources available were just not the same back when it was written).

Saturn System Study II mentions that the single tank design would be "desirable or almost mandatory" for the F-1 + 4xH-1 configuration (on page 64 pdf, 55 actual), but that's all I've been able to find for monolithic tank proposals after the original switch from monolithic to clustered tanks that happened sometime around 1958. https://uah.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16608coll1/id/31283/rec/34

Edited December 8, 2021 by Jcking

[Saltshaker]

9 minutes ago, Spaceman.Spiff said:

Smh just bolt two S-IVBs together 

4.25m double barrel structure wgen @blue wolf

[CobaltWolf]

12 minutes ago, Jcking said:

Saturn System Study II mentions that the single tank design would be "desirable or almost mandatory" for the F-1 + 4xH-1 configuration (on page 64 pdf, 55 actual), but that's all I've been able to find for monolithic tank proposals after the original switch from monolithic to clustered tanks that happened sometime around 1958. https://uah.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16608coll1/id/31283/rec/34

That appears to be the source for the comment in Stages to Saturn, I think?

It occurs to me, one thing somewhat missing from this conversation - there's a VERY big difference between what they could propose in the late 50s, vs what could be proposed in the late 60s. In the study you linked, things are still up in the air, and it's still several years before Kennedy's speech. By the late 60s (which are the docs I referred to), the S-1 had been flying for years. There would be a lot of inertia to overcome if you wanted to substantially redesign the stage at that point.

On another note, this reminded me that I *had* put together something like an H-2 engine a while back. Basically just a small edit to the H-1, but it might be digging up and finishing?

Spoiler

 

H-2 on left, original H-1 on right. The pumps and intake pipes are larger.

 

 

Two more pics of the H-2. One of the other changes I incorporated was a starter cartridge (ripped off the J-2S model)