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

[pTrevTrevs]

1 hour ago, AmateurAstronaut1969 said:

Yeah lmao they are very useful! I used them and the science parts to create my LRV

Unfortunately, it can’t fold - Many of you may be triggered by this, so look away...

Lol, it’s launched on a Saturn 1B, carrying a short centaur, the capture stage, the descent stage and the terminal descent stage (The Ranger landing engines on the ranger probe core). This picture shows the Descent stage

After landing, it waits on the moon until the crew land nearby and collect it. Luckily my LSAM can carry 1 to 4 of these bad boys to the surface at once .

Damn you’re  really just gonna one-up me like that, huh?

Seriously though that looks pretty great; I can’t believe I didn’t think of using the Canopus star tracker or Apollo EVA lamp as greeble. Better add it to the list of modifications set to fly on Apollo 16...

[alberro+]

Not gonna lie, that that is one insane way to land an LRV. Usually I just plop one on the side of my LSAM, and let it rip. 

[Pappystein]

3 hours ago, biohazard15 said:

Back then boiloff was intentionally set high for testing purposes. You should be OK with default rate. Note though that some early tanks (notably Centaur D) have almost no insulation and thus cannot coast for long periods.

WHICH Centaur D?  

There are 3 of them in BDB!

Centaur D.1,  Centaur D.2 and Centaur D.3

 

Oh I am so sorry.  ULA renamed the latter two when they took over Centaur management from NASA

And yes Centaur II = Centaur D.2A,  and Centaur III = Centaur D.3A.   

[TaintedLion]

19 hours ago, pTrevTrevs said:

Screenshot Tax:

Apollo 15 heads skyward on the start of its journey to Hadley

You know, I don't really understand all the clamor for Cobalt to add the LRV; it's not that hard to kitbash your own, fellas.

The descent into the lunar mountain ranges of JNSQ was a pretty tricky one, but the science and the views were definitely worth it. Here Svetlana and Bobnard stop at one of the stations on EVA 2, some 3,300 meters above the nearby lunar *maria*.

Fun fact: Apollo 15 is the only lunar landing mission in which the American flag was not raised during the first EVA. I don't know why they chose to do it at the end of EVA 2, but if I had to guess the decision was influenced by the busy and tiring work schedule of the surface exploration period.

 

By the way, has anyone managed to perform an Apollo landing in the lunar polar regions in JNSQ? I'd like to have one of my last lunar flights in this career save target the south pole, but I'm skeptical that Apollo even has the power to do that without trying something incredibly dangerous and unrealistic.

 

Can I have a craft file for that rover? With mods I need, if possible.

Or maybe a view of that rover from different angles in the VAB?

[bjornadri]

hi guys, just wanted to report a bug i noticed with the latest version, as the telescope flap on the hermes pod opens automatically upon selecting it and there does not seem to be an option to close it in the right-click-menu

[AmateurAstronaut1969]

17 hours ago, pTrevTrevs said:

Damn you’re  really just gonna one-up me like that, huh?

Seriously though that looks pretty great; I can’t believe I didn’t think of using the Canopus star tracker or Apollo EVA lamp as greeble. Better add it to the list of modifications set to fly on Apollo 16...

 

14 hours ago, alberro+ said:

 

Not gonna lie, that that is one insane way to land an LRV. Usually I just plop one on the side of my LSAM, and let it rip. 

 

Hehe thanks guys 

[Pappystein]

Given the headache that has been Agena, I thought I would snap out a simple and quick article on the history of the Post Apollo Saturn to LEO portion of the "Modified Launch Vehicle" program from 1964-68.     The MLV program was designed as a way to "modularize" the Saturn rocket so that the best compnents could contine to develop and thrive.   Basically it was a "we already know how to manufacture this stuff, how can we make better use of it" program. 

 

Saturn I MLV proposals, The LEO INTs:

So this is as comprehensive of a list of all the various Saturn IB proposals under the MLV study as can be easily surmised.   Early on, those rockets based on Saturn I flight profile (LEO only) received INT-x designations.    Those designed for beyond LEO received MLV-x designations and are almost exclusively Saturn V derivatives.

Knowing this, we can quickly break the INT series into three basic Rocket types.  They are the direct Saturn I replacement, the Saturn II based on the S-II stage from Saturn V, and the Saturn V S-IC derived LEO Rockets.

For clarity's sake, Rockets are denoted with the old C series designations (C-1, C-5, etc.) The reason becomes important when you add the un-built C-2, C-3, C-4, etc., to the mix as they all had stages of the same name even though they were rocket specific.  

Unless specifically denoted in the variant, any reference to a MLV stage eg MS-IVB, is for the standard tank but strength optimized stage.   No stretches should be assumed here.   The EXCEPTION:  There are calls for a S-IVC on some of these proposals.  To be clear this is the ACTUAL ORIGIONAL S-IVC not the awesome twin engine Earth to the Sky S-IVC (for clarities sake lets call that an ES-IVC.)  

 Stage 1:  Cluster's last stand (for real this time?)
 

Spoiler

Saturn I

INT-05 family.  This is two generations of proposals; the Original INT-05 had way too much acceleration for manned launches (one of the pre-requisites for the study.)   The 2^nd study’s results, the INT-05A, offer significant changes.  A further INT-05B exists as well, but the data is sketchy.

INT-05:  MS-IVB atop a re-designed Saturn S-IB to S-IVB interstage.   Half-length “full acceleration” AJ-260.   56,000kg to LEO, but the g-force loads would be excessive (approaching 6x the force of gravity)

INT-05A:  Improvement to how the AJ-260 would be engineered and built, utilizing the latest advances in Solid Propellant grain manipulation, a Full “137ft 5in” length AJ-260 with an Augmented thrust profile would be used.   43,000kg to LEO but Man safe (less than 3.5g acceleration)

INT-05B:  Several websites and documents mention a -05B version, but none spell out anything about it except that it existed.   I am ASSUMING that this would be a “thrust profiled” short AJ-260.   The lower acceleration would cause a decline in the payload to orbit around 10-15,000kg or about the same as a standard late Saturn IB.

 

INT-11 to INT-15 family.   This is a series of proposals for either a standard S-IB(C-1) stage or one with a 20 ft stretch… In all cases, either four UA-1205s are used or in conjunction with the 20ft stretch 4 UA-1207s.  Various combinations of Air-lit or ground-lit H-1s and even removing some of the H-1s were studied in this group.   Assume that if the SRM equipped is UA-1207 that the core stage has a 20ft stretch.  In every case in this series, 4 of the 8 stabilizing fins are removed from the 1^st stage of the Saturn Rocket.

INT-11(1205):  As Saturn IB in all respects except 4 UA-1205 SRMs are used to carry the Rocket as the 0 stage.  The First stage (8 H-1s) are ignited approximately 5 seconds before SRM burn out at altitude.  Payload not specified but believed to be slightly less than the 1207 version’s 48,000kg

INT-11(1207):  As Saturn IB in all respects except 4 UA-1207, SRMs are used to carry the Rocket as the 0 stage.  The first stage (8 H-1s) is ignited approximately 5 seconds before SRM burn out at altitude. Payload is 48,000kg  First stage tank stretch is designated S-IB-11

INT-12: As Saturn IB but only the outer 4 H-1s are fitted.  Equipped with 4 UA-1205 SRMs and both the UA-1205s and the H-1s are ignited at launch.    34,000kg to LEO

INT-13: Again using two versions of the Titan SRM, the INT-13 was proposed as a 2x SRM + core Saturn IB.   The base version would add two UA-1205s to ignite at launch with all 8 H-1 engines.  The stretched or INT-13-11 would use 2x UA-1207s.   Payload is listed for the INT-13-11 as 36,500kg to LEO.  I could find no payload listed for the base INT-13.

INT-14:  Three distinct rockets this one.  The INT-14 introduced the idea of using 4x of the Minuteman’s M55/TX-55/TU-122 engine (M55 being the Military designation for both the TX-55 and TU-122.)  With this would be combined a standard Saturn S-IB, a 10ft Stretched S-IB(C-1) tank or a 20ft stretched tank like the INT-11 above.  Each side would carry 2x M55s nestled side by side between each fin.     Data is for the 20ft stretch.   H-1s ignited at launch.  23,180kg LEO payload.

INT-15:  The final version of this series of proposals.  The INT-15 was again studied in 0, 10 and 20ft stretch to the S-IB(C-1) stage.   In this case we have data for the 10ft stretch.   8x Minuteman M55/TX-55/TU-122 engines would be utilized, No indication if the burn profile is ALL/HALF or some other combination.   Assuming all burned at once.  26,000kg to LEO.

 

The INT-16:   On the Subject of Solids and Saturn, after the INT-05 was deemed to high of an acceleration for launch, several companies investigated the use of clustered Titan SRMs in lieu of the monolithic AJ-260.   IN the case of INT-16 the idea of using the UA-1205 as a 2 stage system before starting the S-IVB was introduced.  2 to 5 UA-1205,1206 or 1207s would surround 1 to 3 of the same SRM, with the outer 2 to 5 being ignited first and the inner 1 to 3 being ignited second.  To be clear the UA-1206 talked about here is a full 6 segment version of the 120” CSD SRM.   For clarities sake, I will denote this as the UA-1206F.  This is NOT the UA-1206 that first flew on Titan 34D.  A conic Interstage would be developed as the stack of 120” SRMs would be larger than the base diameter of the Saturn IB.  In fact a new version of the UA-120x would have been developed that used actual Gimbal Thrust Vectoring instead of Liquid injection.   It was this that put the proposal out of sight as the costs involved, given the technology was being developed at competing companies was excessive.    Supposedly a 5x UA-1205 first stage, arranged 4 +1, would lift 28,000kg to LEO.   An extremely optimistic number without creating an excess of acceleration in my opinion.

As can be seen, the original Clustered stage was either improved upon or discarded.   While there was much talk about a unitary first stage no actual proposals study that without getting into exotic contracts not part of the MLV study.   Therefore they are not addressed here.

 Stage 2, Saturn gets FAT:

 

Spoiler

Saturn II family:

INT-17:   INT-17 was a paper study that latched onto the Paper engine known as the HG-3.  The goal was to showcase that while high power engines COULD be made, putting them on a Saturn S-II(C5) stage would not make it fly well or with a viable payload.   This was done as a contrast to the latter INT-18 and INT-19 proposals for Saturn II which both showcased that with existing technology, it was cheaper and effective to replace the Saturn I completely with Saturn V derived components.

INT-18:  The true workhorse of the Saturn II, the INT-18 would combine 2, 4 or even 5 120” Titan SRMs.   Use of stretched tanks was not studied under this series of proposals but the mounting of the 120” SRMs particularly calls for it.   The Strap on SRMs to be used were UA-1204, UA-1205 and UA-1207 in 2 or 4 arrays, Latter it was proposed to use the unbuilt UA-1206F as well but I have never seen a full accounting of any particular performance and can guess that the payload would have fallen roughly between the UA-1205 and UA-1207’s.      The INT-18 was conceptualized in so many different configurations it is hard to keep track.   Be it with 4 UA-1204s and a S-IVB upper stage, or 4 UA-1207s and NO upper stage… the range and breadth of payloads and capabilities of the INT-18 is amazing.   Documented performance runs from 21,300 to 66,400kg to LEO.     This gives rise to my belief that the Saturn II would have become the first truly modular Rocket, something that MSFC engineers and scientists strove to develop with the Saturn Juno V rocket from the start!  Here is I hope a simple chart of the “part variants.” Play legos yourself and see what you can do!  The INT-18 should almost have a MLV designation because with certain combinations of tankage, fuel and engines you can launch a significant sized payload beyond LEO.

 

	Saturn II INT-18 major components
	Liquid stage		Solid Stage
	S-II(C5)		UA-1204
	MS-IIA(MLV)		UA-1205
	MS-IIB(MLV)		UA-1206F
	S-IVB(C-1)		UA-1207
	S-IVB(C-5)
	MS-IVB(C-5)
	S-IVC (NOT ETS!)
	Engine Choices for all of the various Liquid stages:
	J-2	J-2 Sea Level	J-2S	J-2S Sea Level	J-2T	J-2L*	Advanced(RL-20)

 

*Also know as the Linear Test Bed Engine (LTBE) and is currently in the to-do list of EStreetRockets “Rocket Motor Menagerie”

  https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/202266-111x-rocket-motor-menagerie-v100-stockalike-engine-pack/

 

 

INT-19.  Almost a footnote in the development of the INT-18 was the fact that even with it’s modularity The INT-18 was TOO good for many LEO payloads that might be large.   Enter the INT-19.  Combining the already studied Minuteman first stage (the above mentioned M55) with the basic Saturn II premise of a Saturn S-II(C-5) stage with a Saturn S-IVB(C-1 or C-5 depending on actual use,) stage with Solids to help get it off the ground and you get a really fat Delta Rocket.  It was the NASA Delta Rocket’s then proposed (and shortly to fly) use of small solid boosters that started the genesis of the INT-19.  The INT-19, like the INT-18 before it would trade off fuel load for payload.   In every case the Saturn S-II(C-5) stage would be ignited on the ground and in every case it would be a sea level rated engine (so J-2-SL, J-2S-SL, or RL20-P3-booster in BDB.)  During the purposes of the study they only used the Standard J-2 with a Sealevel optimized bell.  Carrying 0 M55s the payload to LEO was a small but not insignificant 5,500kg.   Running in an 8x4 array of 12 M55s the payload could rise to a hefty 34,200kg.   In this way the INT-19 was a more direct replacement for the Saturn I and the INT-18 before it was a more “between” the Saturn I and the Saturn V.     While not currently in the game, although work is being done to bring it onboard, the M55 can be almost replicated by using the 0.9375m Algol SRB from BDB.

 

Between the INT-18 and the INT-19 you have a full duplication of every possible Saturn configuration from LEO and beyond.   If you add in larger SRMs to the Saturn INT-18 you can get Saturn V performance on a "shorter" rocket.     These two rockets actually make the most sense of the mostly un-modified stage combinations that make up the entirety of the Saturn MLV program.  But without very large SRMs it is useless to get to the moon or beyond with large (read that as manned) payloads.   So many rocket historians deride these choices because of that one limitation.

 

 Stage 3, Big, Dumb and Uglyish:

Spoiler

The Saturn V derived INT-20 is a unique look at a company’s study done almost out of spite for a competing company.   The S-IC(C5) rocket stage is vastly overpowered for LEO only launches…   At a Heavy and in-efficent 4.6gs of acceleration, in conjunction with a MS-IVB upper stage, the S-IC can hurl 72,000kg to LEO….   Conversely, if you remove all but 2 of the F-1 engines it can lift a stately 27,000kg to LEO… still at the still heavy acceleration of 4.6x the force of gravity.     Where it gets mind numbing is when you reduce the S-IC’s fuel load allowing for a peak acceleration of 6x the force of gravity… 133,000kg to LEO…   In short, the INT-20 is not a real workable design since most spacecraft have a hard limit of 4.0x the force of gravity.

 

The INT-21, the only member of the entire MLV family to fly, is Unique in that while it too has a 4.68x G acceleration like the INT-20 before it, it does not seem to be made from spite like it’s predecessor.  Utilizing a standard sized but optimized MS-IC(C-5) first stage and MS-II(C-5) second stage the INT-21 was poised to be THE large mass launcher for the US space flight.   In the end a some what related standard Saturn V was used to launch Skylab…        Like the INT-18 and INT-19 above, and to a lesser extent the INT-20, the INT-21 studied “basically standard” tankage from the Saturn V equipped with less engines.   With 4 F-1s and 3 J-2s the INT-21 was capable of 76,000kg to Leo.  With a full 5x5, 116,000kg to LEO.

 

	INT-21 configurations
	Designation		Mass to LEO
	Saturn INT-20(4x3)		76,000
	Saturn INT-20(4x4)		84,000
	Saturn INT-20(4x5)		89,000
	Saturn INT-20(5x3)		101,000
	Saturn INT-20(5x4)		112,000
	Saturn INT-20(5x5)		116,000

 

INT-27 the last of the LEO designs published:

The INT-27 is not really buildable in KSP.  It utilized 156” SRMs that do not exist (sure that is a 2.5m solid like the space shuttle SRB but the configuration of the parts requires a different shape to fit in the Saturn setup.    The idea is strikingly similar to the INT-16 above and the drawings for it are often times confused with the INT-16.   In the INT-27, a single CTD-156 SRM would be centered under a X Truss that is below the S-IVB(C1) to S-IB(C1) interstage.   Then four more CTD-156 SRMs would be radially attached to the central one… like the INT-16 the SRMs would burn “outside in” with the single in the center being a 2^nd stage.  The problems start with the fact that United Aircraft Chemical Systems division (the manufacture of the UA-120x for Titan) never solved many of the issues with their 156” SRM.  Most MLV documents assumed they would be functional.  Instead, Thiokol and Lockheed would both solve the problems of nozzle gimbal nearly simultaneously.  The result was Thiokol’s 156” SRM being chosen as the basis of the Space Shuttle 148” SRB.   In theory, the combination of CTD-156 SRMs would have lofted between 18,000kg and 70,000kg to LEO.     

 

 I mentioned in the INT-20 section how Boeing seems to almost have derived their proposals to spite other companies rather than with a real purpose.   This is because for LEO, the real choice is the proposed S-ID stage.   With 3 Engines, the S-ID would replicate (at a likely lower cost) the capabilties of much of the INT-18 and INT-19 family.   But, since the S-ID was not included in these proposals and was covered under a different contract I won't go further into it here.

 

Here ends the role-call for all the Saturn Derived Saturn I replacements at the end of the 1960s.  A further major series of studies were done for NASA in the 1970s but most of that was focused on technology growth for STS rather than actual all up rockets for Saturn Replacement.

 

[alberro+]

10 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

Given the headache that has been Agena, I thought I would snap out a simple and quick article on the history of the Post Apollo Saturn to LEO portion of the "Modified Launch Vehicle" program from 1964-68.     The MLV program was designed as a way to "modularize" the Saturn rocket so that the best compnents could contine to develop and thrive.   Basically it was a "we already know how to manufacture this stuff, how can we make better use of it" program.

-snip-

 

Did..
Did you type this all in?

 

Jeez, you are one dedicated man.

[Pappystein]

3 hours ago, alberro+ said:

Did..
Did you type this all in?

 

Jeez, you are one dedicated man.

Thanks!

Yes I typed it, mostly from memory.   (I am blessed & cursed with an above average memory)

I did piece together data from various sources (both on and off the NASA NTRS servers, 3rd parties like AIAA and mounds of data from NASASpaceFlight's L2 and Open forums.

I also utilized Astronautix for tables because it is easier to find them there than in the source materials while on the "fly" as it were. 

The place I spent the LEAST amount of time on (only because too many people make it too confusing and get things messed up there.)   any of the Wikis including Wikipedia.

A perfect example of why NOT to go to Wikipeida is the Centaur Rocket stage    VERY poorly done, few facts and many MANY issues.

Just scroll up a few posts on this page for proof of that!  

 

Edited June 12, 2021 by Pappystein

[JoeSheridan]

3 hours ago, Pappystein said:

A perfect example of why NOT to go to Wikipeida is the Centaur Rocket stage    VERY poorly done, few facts and many MANY issues.

Yep, perfect example. There are  A LOT things that could be explained better, for example: The exact types of RL-10´s used on different stages ( and when they were switched out for  other one (Centaur II for Atlas IIA, Atlas V in recent years for SEC launches due to cost reasons etc. ),  The exact version use of the Centaur II´s and III/ Common Centaur ( when is a DEC and when is a SEC used, especially regarding to the Atlas III launchers. Astronautix is a way better source to find out what Centaur+RL-10-combination was exactly used on a given launcher.

The articles about the centaur and the Atlas-family (exept the Atlas V) could become a nearly complete rewrite based on just one source / the sources used in this work here: https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4230.pdf ( i am sure you know that book Pappystein) 

Edited June 12, 2021 by JoeSheridan

[Pappystein]

27 minutes ago, JoeSheridan said:

Yep, perfect example. There are  A LOT things that could be explained better, for example: The exact types of RL-10´s used on different stages ( and when they were switched out for  other one (Centaur II for Atlas IIA, Atlas V in recent years for SEC launches due to cost reasons etc. ),  The exact version use of the Centaur II´s and III/ Common Centaur ( when is a DEC and when is a SEC used, especially regarding to the Atlas III launchers. Astronautix is a way better source to find out what Centaur+RL-10-combination was exactly used on a given launcher.

The articles about the centaur and the Atlas-family (exept the Atlas V) could become a nearly complete rewrite based on just one source / the sources used in this work here: https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4230.pdf ( i am sure you know that book Pappystein) 

Stages of Centaur is a good short PRIMER book on the history of the Centaur program.  However, if you used just that book, you would still be making the Wiki pages a mockery of the real history.  Those pages would be 100 fold more accurate than they are now but still very wrong.    The authors of Stages, in my mind, seem to have ignored facts/sources or just contradicted them for the sake of their already planned-out narrative.  

Also, prior to the Lewis Research Center's involvement, Centaur C was the stage for Saturn launches, Centaur D was to be Atlas launched, and Centaur A and B were test series (as in more than one launch) of ever-increasing complexity.    The failure of the first Centaur lead to an almost immediate re-assignment to Lewis, and THEY, that is Lewis, changed the nomenclature.   Many MSFC/Redstone Arsenal papers and Convar(GD) papers on the Saturn Centaur predate the first Centaur failure that confirms this.
There are others that frequent these forums that actually have more data on this than I do.

Wow, I am triggered on Centaur these past two days, huh?!

 

[Heliotrope]

7 hours ago, Pappystein said:

Given the headache that has been Agena, I thought I would snap out a simple and quick article on the history of the Post Apollo Saturn to LEO portion of the "Modified Launch Vehicle" program from 1964-68.     The MLV program was designed as a way to "modularize" the Saturn rocket so that the best compnents could contine to develop and thrive.   Basically it was a "we already know how to manufacture this stuff, how can we make better use of it" program.

Thank you SO much for writing this up. I love thinking alternate space histories and play this game to live them and posts like these are my crack. I loved it. Really appreciate it!

[hikerchick29]

I upgraded my BDB version to the most current dev version, running KSP 1.11.2, and I'm getting B9 part switch errors on OAO parts and Mariner 2 parts 

Edited June 13, 2021 by hikerchick29

[Pappystein]

1 hour ago, Heliotrope said:

Thank you SO much for writing this up. I love thinking alternate space histories and play this game to live them and posts like these are my crack. I loved it. Really appreciate it!

GLAD to be of Help!

the Intermediary Saturn Rockets (the ones described above,) can be some of the hardest to find good data on.   So I wanted to try and do it some justice.

[derega16]

Just try XLR-129 why nozzle extension won't deploy? I already turn on auto mode change.

[Zorg]

7 hours ago, hikerchick29 said:

I upgraded my BDB version to the most current dev version, running KSP 1.11.2, and I'm getting B9 part switch errors on OAO parts and Mariner 2 parts 

Will need to see a modlist, modulemanager.configcache and ksp.log

1 hour ago, derega16 said:

Just try XLR-129 why nozzle extension won't deploy? I already turn on auto mode change.

The auto mode change I think is something coming from the stock module meant to work with the RAPIER and such. The XLR 129 requires a manual mode change.

[JoeSheridan]

21 hours ago, Pappystein said:

Stages of Centaur is a good short PRIMER book on the history of the Centaur program.  However, if you used just that book, you would still be making the Wiki pages a mockery of the real history.  Those pages would be 100 fold more accurate than they are now but still very wrong.    The authors of Stages, in my mind, seem to have ignored facts/sources or just contradicted them for the sake of their already planned-out narrative.  

I know, but at least the most important factd would be included and would be right. I would make the page for the Altas IIIA and IIIB a bit less confusing for example. And: Thanks for the Book title I will look into where i can take a look into it.

 

21 hours ago, Pappystein said:

Wow, I am triggered on Centaur these past two days, huh?!

Hey: The centaur is one of the most important component-family in the whole history of human spaceflight so ----- BIG trigger-potential. 

PS: Sorry for the high amount of grammar and tipe-mistakes yesterday. Not beeing an native speaker and a few beer don´t mix so well sometimes

Edited June 13, 2021 by JoeSheridan

[Pappystein]

5 hours ago, JoeSheridan said:

PS: Sorry for the high amount of grammar and tipe-mistakes yesterday. Not beeing an native speaker and a few beer don´t mix so well sometimes

You were fine.  You completed your job of communicating your point/thoughts.   

Heck, I am a native speaker of the Statesman (American) dialect of English and I have problems with it!   

 

....  Without Beer!  

 

[alberro+]

Not gonna lie Pappystein, you could definitely use a thread to write all this stuff down. You seem to know an incredible amount of stuff regarding this. Would be really cool to see it all in one place too.

 

Back on topic, any other sneak peaks on the Apollo revamp?

Edited June 14, 2021 by alberro+

[Pappystein]

10 minutes ago, alberro+ said:

Not gonna lie Pappystein, you could definitely use a thread to write all this stuff down. You seem to know an incredible amount of stuff regarding this. Would be really cool to see it all in one place too.

 

Back on topic, any other sneak peaks on the Apollo revamp?

I am actually starting to pull my docs together for a "History Wiki" much like how Friznit does the "Unofficially Official  user manuals."   Sadly, there are two reasons why I don't create my own thread.  1) I can't control who posts, making my documents no easier to find than they are here in BDB.  2) I am very BDB focused and I actually know less than most about say, the Russian/fSoviet space programs.

I have some Hurdles to overcome yet, but soon(tm)....   yes soon(tm)

 

 

[alberro+]

1 hour ago, Pappystein said:

I am actually starting to pull my docs together for a "History Wiki" much like how Friznit does the "Unofficially Official  user manuals."   Sadly, there are two reasons why I don't create my own thread.  1) I can't control who posts, making my documents no easier to find than they are here in BDB.  2) I am very BDB focused and I actually know less than most about say, the Russian/fSoviet space programs.

I have some Hurdles to overcome yet, but soon(tm)....   yes soon(tm)

 

 

This man is going to LITERALLY consume several gigabytes of info on Russian/Soviet space programs. 

Also, any idea what this is or how I can make it using BDB?

 

Edited June 14, 2021 by alberro+

[CollectingSP]

41 minutes ago, alberro+ said:

any idea what this is

It’s Cursed. That’s what it is.

[Friznit]

5 hours ago, alberro+ said:

This man is going to LITERALLY consume several gigabytes of info on Russian/Soviet space programs. 

Also, any idea what this is or how I can make it using BDB?

 

It's an old kit bash that I did of a the conceptual Saturn V ELV using the stretched Saturn tanks in BDB Extras and probably a bit of tweakscale for the S-V stage.  Looks like proc fairings for some of the interstages too.

[Pappystein]

8 hours ago, alberro+ said:

Also, any idea what this is or how I can make it using BDB?

2 hours ago, Friznit said:

It's an old kit bash that I did of a the conceptual Saturn V ELV using the stretched Saturn tanks in BDB Extras and probably a bit of tweakscale for the S-V stage.  Looks like proc fairings for some of the interstages too.

 

Given  what Friznit says above, I would suggest using the BDB Extras Saturn MLV tank stretches that I developed several years ago.   Then It is 4 UA1207s on the 1st stage.    

Most MLV document used a Payload fairing that included the Centaur stage inside the Payload fairing (so no procedural fairings needed, just use the Saturn 3.75m Fairing.)

Friznit would have to answer but it looks like their Centaur in that picture is Increased diameter (one of the so called "Big Centaurs".)   None of those, except the original PRE Lewis stretched proposals ever saw the light of day... in any form.   The Centaur Stretch would latter happen with Centaur D.2 (AKA Centaur II)

[somnambulist]

17 hours ago, Pappystein said:

I am actually starting to pull my docs together for a "History Wiki" much like how Friznit does the "Unofficially Official  user manuals."  

 

 

Have you thought about doing a Youtube channel? I'm thinking like Drachinifel except spaceflight instead of naval history.