Jump to content

[1.12.3] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.11.0 "вне" 22/Oct/2022)


CobaltWolf
 Share

Recommended Posts

Okay, so... Saturn IB and KSRSS-Reborn.

For those of you who doesn't know it yet, KSRSS is getting a major update. Some texture refreshment and compatibility for latest Scatterer, but most importantly, "JNSQ-fication" - which means the system now is at JNSQ size (1\4 of RSS) instead of 2.5x. Which means stuff is slightly larger now (Earth radius is 1597 km instead of 1500, for example). This means that some launches from some launch sites can actually be harder than in JNSQ.

Which brings up a question: how well BDB Saturn IB would handle that?

Turns out, not too well.

The only way I was able to achieve 100km-28 deg-circular LEO from CCAFS with Skylab 4 craft file without using Apollo engine was to strip it down as much as I can. ASTP profile for SM, no Snacks in CM, no monoprop in S-IVB base, 50% monoprop in APS.

I was in "Saturn-IB should be a pain" camp... until now. This thing could really benefit from a minor buff to its 1st stage.

(Also, I'm pretty much sure that Skylab 4 was supposed to dock with Skylab, not bump it...)

Edited by biohazard15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, biohazard15 said:

Okay, so... Saturn IB and KSRSS-Reborn.

For those of you who doesn't know it yet, KSRSS is getting a major update. Some texture refreshment and compatibility for latest Scatterer, but most importantly, "JNSQ-fication" - which means the system now is at JNSQ size (1\4 of RSS) instead of 2.5x. Which means stuff is slightly larger now (Earth radius is 1597 km instead of 1500, for example). This means that some launches from some launch sites can actually be harder than in JNSQ.

Which brings up a question: how well BDB Saturn IB would handle that?

Turns out, not too well.

The only way I was able to achieve 100km-28 deg-circular LEO from CCAFS with Skylab 4 craft file without using Apollo engine was to strip it down as much as I can. ASTP profile for SM, no Snacks in CM, no monoprop in S-IVB base, 50% monoprop in APS (series 200 type).

I was in "Saturn-IB should be a pain" camp... until now. This thing could really benefit from a minor buff to its 1st stage.

The thing is that Saturn IB is buffed (with the dry mass being very far below what an appropriately scaled Saturn IB should be), it's just that it still is anemic despite this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, biohazard15 said:

Okay, so... Saturn IB and KSRSS-Reborn.

For those of you who doesn't know it yet, KSRSS is getting a major update. Some texture refreshment and compatibility for latest Scatterer, but most importantly, "JNSQ-fication" - which means the system now is at JNSQ size (1\4 of RSS) instead of 2.5x. Which means stuff is slightly larger now (Earth radius is 1597 km instead of 1500, for example). This means that some launches from some launch sites can actually be harder than in JNSQ.

Which brings up a question: how well BDB Saturn IB would handle that?

Turns out, not too well.

The only way I was able to achieve 100km-28 deg-circular LEO from CCAFS with Skylab 4 craft file without using Apollo engine was to strip it down as much as I can. ASTP profile for SM, no Snacks in CM, no monoprop in S-IVB base, 50% monoprop in APS.

I was in "Saturn-IB should be a pain" camp... until now. This thing could really benefit from a minor buff to its 1st stage.

(Also, I'm pretty much sure that Skylab 4 was supposed to dock with Skylab, not bump it...)

Although the Saturn-1B could probably use a small buff I'm not surprised that you are having trouble with Snacks installed.  That will increase the weight of crewed vehicles above what is historically accurate which when you are using a rocket with such low margins as the Saturn-1B can really screw you over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CDSlice said:

Although the Saturn-1B could probably use a small buff I'm not surprised that you are having trouble with Snacks installed.  That will increase the weight of crewed vehicles above what is historically accurate which when you are using a rocket with such low margins as the Saturn-1B can really screw you over.

Snacks aren't the major factor here. 1 Snack adds 1 kg, Apollo CM can hold up to 150 Snacks. For station ferry missions (like Skylab flights) I usually fly with 10 Snacks per crew member (which means extra 30 kg for CSM) - this is usually more than enough to keep crew happy, and not enough to make a noticeable dent in dV.

What makes difference is the SM fuel load, following by monoprop load in S-IVB. So it's either S-I buff, or S-IVB\Apollo buff. The latter would mean a buff to Saturn-V, which is IMO isn't needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, pTrevTrevs said:

The Saturn V contractors will be taking in money hand over fist when these things hit the market. We're up to what, three Saturn V's per landing now?

3 Saturn Vs

3 various LMs

3 CSMs

6-9 Astronauts 

potentially 6-9 backup crew…

 

Edited by SpaceFace545
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

3 Saturn Vs

3 various LMs

3 CSMs

6-9 Astronauts 

potentially 6-9 backup crew…

 

Why 6-9 astros though? Can't you launch both MOLAB and Shelter with uncrewed "tug" CSMs (provided it's a possiblity at all)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I decided to keep my current career going for now and decided to go Neptune and it's Moon Triton.

Mila with Gemini lander named "Quark"

20220807123839_1_by_pudgemountain_dfau7kx-pre.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7ImhlaWdodCI6Ijw9NzIwIiwicGF0aCI6IlwvZlwvNWNlZDA4NmItYTUwYy00YjFkLWJmZmItYmRhOWYxOTgyNzVmXC9kZmF1N2t4LWFmZTk3ZThjLTUyYTktNDU2Zi1hNGNmLWMzODhjNzJiNDM4My5qcGciLCJ3aWR0aCI6Ijw9MTI4MCJ9XV0sImF1ZCI6WyJ1cm46c2VydmljZTppbWFnZS5vcGVyYXRpb25zIl19.V1kcpommFM-L6rSVAXq1wAIurQ-BI_WHjLkKjP640Xo

20220807124826_1_by_pudgemountain_dfau7kt-pre.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7ImhlaWdodCI6Ijw9NzIwIiwicGF0aCI6IlwvZlwvNWNlZDA4NmItYTUwYy00YjFkLWJmZmItYmRhOWYxOTgyNzVmXC9kZmF1N2t0LTA4YzRlYTRmLWZkOTktNDMyYy05N2ZlLTExNGI4Y2FkNzA1Yy5qcGciLCJ3aWR0aCI6Ijw9MTI4MCJ9XV0sImF1ZCI6WyJ1cm46c2VydmljZTppbWFnZS5vcGVyYXRpb25zIl19.gWwBv5oNj116lRA8oZWXfYrAlrCowf9XQPHb79zL57E

20220807125006_1_by_pudgemountain_dfau7kp-pre.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7ImhlaWdodCI6Ijw9NzIwIiwicGF0aCI6IlwvZlwvNWNlZDA4NmItYTUwYy00YjFkLWJmZmItYmRhOWYxOTgyNzVmXC9kZmF1N2twLTIyNmFmMjA2LTYyZTgtNDMxZC05ZDY0LWRjYzY1ZDk1MzI0My5qcGciLCJ3aWR0aCI6Ijw9MTI4MCJ9XV0sImF1ZCI6WyJ1cm46c2VydmljZTppbWFnZS5vcGVyYXRpb25zIl19.9YOjT7XE4d1RbLkfJ_ySQIM9Gpn4QsAnT40luA0gIqI

Spoiler

20220807125923_1_by_pudgemountain_dfau7km-pre.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7ImhlaWdodCI6Ijw9NzIwIiwicGF0aCI6IlwvZlwvNWNlZDA4NmItYTUwYy00YjFkLWJmZmItYmRhOWYxOTgyNzVmXC9kZmF1N2ttLTAyZmIyNTY2LTJlMzAtNDc3YS1hNDE0LTBjYzJlYThkNWIzYi5qcGciLCJ3aWR0aCI6Ijw9MTI4MCJ9XV0sImF1ZCI6WyJ1cm46c2VydmljZTppbWFnZS5vcGVyYXRpb25zIl19.6453gdC0CDNQJZzLs3ym1XBRHo2kKPujJnUAILkBdcU

20220807130059_1_by_pudgemountain_dfau7kj-pre.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7ImhlaWdodCI6Ijw9NzIwIiwicGF0aCI6IlwvZlwvNWNlZDA4NmItYTUwYy00YjFkLWJmZmItYmRhOWYxOTgyNzVmXC9kZmF1N2tqLThlNDRmY2MwLTc0NTUtNGMzYS05MjM3LWJmMzk4ZGJkMjBjZS5qcGciLCJ3aWR0aCI6Ijw9MTI4MCJ9XV0sImF1ZCI6WyJ1cm46c2VydmljZTppbWFnZS5vcGVyYXRpb25zIl19.zpbSLUDRRWK047XxpVFeiN422Nj-cv6H0aGpjr1sW_Q

20220807130416_1_by_pudgemountain_dfau7kh-pre.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7ImhlaWdodCI6Ijw9NzIwIiwicGF0aCI6IlwvZlwvNWNlZDA4NmItYTUwYy00YjFkLWJmZmItYmRhOWYxOTgyNzVmXC9kZmF1N2toLTQyOTU3OTIxLTI5NmUtNDcwMy1hNTYxLTBhYTc5OTJjMGQ5Mi5qcGciLCJ3aWR0aCI6Ijw9MTI4MCJ9XV0sImF1ZCI6WyJ1cm46c2VydmljZTppbWFnZS5vcGVyYXRpb25zIl19.zbLIqA9fA2sCiClPJC7tui-bXL4-cu_wT1Oo9oWegWI

20220807130432_1_by_pudgemountain_dfau7kc-pre.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7ImhlaWdodCI6Ijw9NzIwIiwicGF0aCI6IlwvZlwvNWNlZDA4NmItYTUwYy00YjFkLWJmZmItYmRhOWYxOTgyNzVmXC9kZmF1N2tjLWViNDJmNjNjLWViMTMtNGM1Yy1hOGRhLWRlNmU2ODEwZThmOS5qcGciLCJ3aWR0aCI6Ijw9MTI4MCJ9XV0sImF1ZCI6WyJ1cm46c2VydmljZTppbWFnZS5vcGVyYXRpb25zIl19.idbW55okb1LpmKWfx3flEB0T9WGeayhCuhfWJ96i6VM

Decided to try Hullcam's First Person View climbing down the lander.

20220807130534_1_by_pudgemountain_dfau7ka-pre.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7ImhlaWdodCI6Ijw9NzIwIiwicGF0aCI6IlwvZlwvNWNlZDA4NmItYTUwYy00YjFkLWJmZmItYmRhOWYxOTgyNzVmXC9kZmF1N2thLTkzMzViZGEzLTE0ODYtNDg0YS05NmYyLWYxYzcxMTkzNWJjZS5qcGciLCJ3aWR0aCI6Ijw9MTI4MCJ9XV0sImF1ZCI6WyJ1cm46c2VydmljZTppbWFnZS5vcGVyYXRpb25zIl19.KTTny-1JEfNP-X755i4DIQQGn4d1SL-0X7NISxw7WMU

20220807131313_1_by_pudgemountain_dfau7k8-pre.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7ImhlaWdodCI6Ijw9NzIwIiwicGF0aCI6IlwvZlwvNWNlZDA4NmItYTUwYy00YjFkLWJmZmItYmRhOWYxOTgyNzVmXC9kZmF1N2s4LTU3MzQ3ZmZjLTAzOTktNDYzMS05NzFkLWFhN2RjMWM2NmZiZS5qcGciLCJ3aWR0aCI6Ijw9MTI4MCJ9XV0sImF1ZCI6WyJ1cm46c2VydmljZTppbWFnZS5vcGVyYXRpb25zIl19.QsXjIRjW8-kLeHZXbQs-fgD9JEbodLH1GafH4C43KU4

Also turns out the Banana particles stay, and no flag for some reason it was underground.

20220807131647_1_by_pudgemountain_dfau7k7-pre.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7ImhlaWdodCI6Ijw9NzIwIiwicGF0aCI6IlwvZlwvNWNlZDA4NmItYTUwYy00YjFkLWJmZmItYmRhOWYxOTgyNzVmXC9kZmF1N2s3LTEwZDFhMjQ2LWM3OWYtNGVkZi04MDc2LTFlZWUyMGE0NDgyMC5qcGciLCJ3aWR0aCI6Ijw9MTI4MCJ9XV0sImF1ZCI6WyJ1cm46c2VydmljZTppbWFnZS5vcGVyYXRpb25zIl19.SfDXUlmz8lA2iYLU8BTln67CExykalIS_lOLFmbKMQc

I will say this though, if you plan on doing a Triton landing, use the Apollo lander, the Gemini lander did make it down and back but barely enough fuel.

This was fun though also Mila's last mission. I am decommissioning Mila due to it being almost 70 years old plus unlike the Bradbury. Mila wasn't stable when carrying a lander and ship at the same time so the crew transfer ship had to stay in LEO. 

As for a replacement, might just use Gemini Phoenix class ships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alpha512 said:

Why 6-9 astros though? Can't you launch both MOLAB and Shelter with uncrewed "tug" CSMs (provided it's a possiblity at all)?

You could but I’m not assuming tugs existed

also a little dramatization for how ridiculous AES was

Edited by SpaceFace545
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Delta Lite. 

Let me guess, Scott Manley's latest Delta Rocket History video?

Honestly though, what an interesting concept, and actually looks kinda okay appearance wise.

Edited by Echo11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Echo11 said:

Let me guess, Scott Manley's latest Delta Rocket History video?

Honestly though, what an interesting concept, and actually looks kinda okay appearance wise.

Is it that obvious? :D

And yeah. Reminds me of the Athena modular family concept, specifically the Athena IIcS-2, just with a different upper stage.

LMC_Athena_chart.jpg (576×381) (satnews.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

You could but I’m not assuming tugs existed

also a little dramatization for how ridiculous AES was

It's all hypothetical, but it was proposed to launch a sm tug upside-down docked to the lander.  

Although a crew launch is doable, plenty to do for a crewed mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/7/2022 at 4:20 PM, biohazard15 said:

Okay, so... Saturn IB and KSRSS-Reborn.

For those of you who doesn't know it yet, KSRSS is getting a major update. Some texture refreshment and compatibility for latest Scatterer, but most importantly, "JNSQ-fication" - which means the system now is at JNSQ size (1\4 of RSS) instead of 2.5x. Which means stuff is slightly larger now (Earth radius is 1597 km instead of 1500, for example). This means that some launches from some launch sites can actually be harder than in JNSQ.

Which brings up a question: how well BDB Saturn IB would handle that?

Turns out, not too well.

The only way I was able to achieve 100km-28 deg-circular LEO from CCAFS with Skylab 4 craft file without using Apollo engine was to strip it down as much as I can. ASTP profile for SM, no Snacks in CM, no monoprop in S-IVB base, 50% monoprop in APS.

I was in "Saturn-IB should be a pain" camp... until now. This thing could really benefit from a minor buff to its 1st stage.

(Also, I'm pretty much sure that Skylab 4 was supposed to dock with Skylab, not bump it...)

Saturn IB is already massively buffed. It’s probably your ascent curve, I and many others have been able to replicate its missions with no issues. If you’re using mechjeb profiles, don’t. I’ve been able to eyeball ascent curves with not that much care and I’ve made it. I’ve tested on 2.5x KSRSS and I can on KSRSS reborn too but it shouldn’t produce any problems. 
 

However, could you tell me more about the docking issues you had? We’re aware there’s an issue with docking but it’s still not totally clear where it comes from or how can we resolve it. Any info from you or anyone else on this would be greatly appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Invaderchaos said:

Saturn IB is already massively buffed. It’s probably your ascent curve, I and many others have been able to replicate its missions with no issues. If you’re using mechjeb profiles, don’t. I’ve been able to eyeball ascent curves with not that much care and I’ve made it. I’ve tested on 2.5x KSRSS and I can on KSRSS reborn too but it shouldn’t produce any problems. 
 

However, could you tell me more about the docking issues you had? We’re aware there’s an issue with docking but it’s still not totally clear where it comes from or how can we resolve it. Any info from you or anyone else on this would be greatly appreciated.

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!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Saturn IB is already massively buffed. It’s probably your ascent curve, I and many others have been able to replicate its missions with no issues. If you’re using mechjeb profiles, don’t. I’ve been able to eyeball ascent curves with not that much care and I’ve made it. I’ve tested on 2.5x KSRSS and I can on KSRSS reborn too but it shouldn’t produce any problems. 
 

However, could you tell me more about the docking issues you had? We’re aware there’s an issue with docking but it’s still not totally clear where it comes from or how can we resolve it. Any info from you or anyone else on this would be greatly appreciated.

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 :D    We can sort of do the F-1/4H-1 build now.   We can do H-2 engines now......

Edited by Pappystein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Invaderchaos said:

However, could you tell me more about the docking issues you had? We’re aware there’s an issue with docking but it’s still not totally clear where it comes from or how can we resolve it. Any info from you or anyone else on this would be greatly appreciated.

It's not docking issue, it's a craft file issue - it has nosecone instead of docking probe :P

As for docking issues - can't remember if I ever had any issue with Apollo pair.

2 hours ago, Invaderchaos said:

If you’re using mechjeb profiles, don’t. I’ve been able to eyeball ascent curves with not that much care and I’ve made it. I’ve tested on 2.5x KSRSS and I can on KSRSS reborn too but it shouldn’t produce any problems. 

I do use MJ PVG, and I never had major problems with 2.5x. Please do test it in Reborn if you have time.

Maybe a minor buff to H-1s will do the trick? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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"

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/7/2022 at 5:08 PM, pTrevTrevs said:

The Saturn V contractors will be taking in money hand over fist when these things hit the market. We're up to what, three Saturn V's per landing now?

There was never any more than two Saturn V per launch for extended Apollo missions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Pappystein said:

Had Saturn I received the as designed 220" S-IV, the original, as designed CSM stack should have been orbit-able with ease.

 

@CobaltWolf, @Invaderchaos, is there any chance we could see this in game? Would be very interesting.

@Pappysteinmakes some great points on how the Saturn IB is modeled in BDB. It seems as if every reasonable buff has been already completed, so then we as users just have to find a way around it. One of my favorites is a four engine E-1 model...

To add on to this discussion, I once read in an official NASA document (I apologize, I don't have the link anymore) that during a congressional interview that no less than Werner Von Braun himself admitted that the cluster tank Saturn I/IB was an expedient to get a powerful multi-engine booster flying in the quickest possible time at the most reasonable budget possible. He admitted that it was NOT an optimal design, acknowledging its limitations. Once built, they were stuck with it until they flew out all the units contracted for. I was left with the distinct impression that under different circumstances Marshall would have gone with a mono-tank design of much lighter weight. It also begs the question of what NASA would have done once the IBs were all flown. This part has been discussed to death, but I believe it is likely that the cluster tank IB would have given way to an ETS style S-IC or one of the non-cluster INT designs.

Great stuff all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jcking said:

There was never any more than two Saturn V per launch for extended Apollo missions.

Some mission would require 3 Saturn V's. Apollo + 3 man LM, Apollo + 3 man shelter and Apollo + LM Truck + Rover. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, darthvader15001 said:

Two things. Does this have waterfall support and is there a lite version?

yes it has waterfall. No there's no lite version but you can delete part folders without causing to many problems, just don't delete individual .cfg's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...