Jump to content

[1.12.5] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.12.0 "Песок" 13/Jan/2023)


CobaltWolf
 Share

Recommended Posts

Anyhoo, this prob could have made release if I weren't lazy. Will be putting this into a patch soonish. Available now in github Master (apollo-saturn dev is no longer in use).

This adapter is using all existing SAF assets but is an SLA type module for the correct staging. The side panels need to be attached to the base just like the historical SLA. 1 variant to the panels is provided to allow for use on the 6.25m SII sized base as well.

Demoed here with the Making Alternate History Altair/Artemis lander (no we're not making one :P ).

Image

Image

 

Image

Image

Image

Image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Zorg said:

Anyhoo, this prob could have made release if I weren't lazy. Will be putting this into a patch soonish. Available now in github Master (apollo-saturn dev is no longer in use).

This adapter is using all existing SAF assets but is an SLA type module for the correct staging. The side panels need to be attached to the base just like the historical SLA. 1 variant to the panels is provided to allow for use on the 6.25m SII sized base as well.

Demoed here with the Making Alternate History Altair/Artemis lander (no we're not making one :P ).

Image

Image

Image

Image

Your legs seem to be a little high there. :P 

Joking aside, awesome! Now we can do a semi-proper ETS Lunar mission. All we need now is proper Pegasus upper stage. ;) (Totally not a request, just saying Pegasus is missing for an actual ETS mission)

Edited by GoldForest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Zorg said:

All major BDB updates are generally breaking changes as parts get replaced, this one even more so due to the number of parts being revamped. 

You can downgrade the BDB version in CKAN and reload the save, retire old craft and then upgrade again if you didnt want to start a new save. 

Edit: unfortunately there is no way to provide this warning via CKAN.

I did roll back the version, and reloaded the save...the stations were completely gone...not recoverable, unless I want to undo 3 days worth of other work (my own damned fault).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Michel Bartolone said:

I did roll back the version, and reloaded the save...the stations were completely gone...not recoverable, unless I want to undo 3 days worth of other work (my own damned fault).

:( . well if your persistent file got overwritten when you loaded initially with the update that would be broken for good. You need to load a save from before you opened with the new BDB. If you dont maintain backup saves manually see if theres a workable file in the auto Backup folder.

eg: Kerbal Space Program/saves/mysavename/Backup

Edited by Zorg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Could have sworn I saw mention of a Titan/Gemini update/revamp somewhere... hmm, false memory I guess, my bad lol.

IIRC that was another player making comment about how "old" and "outdated" it looked.   Of course the Titan Revamp is where BDB really starts it's modern shine so those statements are mostly Hogwash.   Although there are plenty of things that have not been touched in the Realm of Titan:

  • Alternate Kick upper stages (2 produced and 3 hypothetical)
  • 6 segment UA-1206 (vs 5.5 segment)
  • 156" (2.5m) SRMs (may or may not be coming in Saturn Phase 2)
  • fittings for 2.5m KSP scale Hydrolox 2nd stage (stand offs for UA-120x decoupler as well as the bigger 2nd stage tank)
  • 2.5m KSP scale Hydrolox first stage (Not a part of the LDC family!)   3x LR87-LH2 bells on that  And yes some prospective versions were 2.5m First stage 1.875m Hypergolic 2nd stage and others were 2.5m Hydrolox 2nd Stage on a 1.875m Hypergolic First stage.

There are plenty more things that could have been made for Titan (and no that is not a wish list for the BDB team)   I am just stating that there are things that could still be done if someone wanted to.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, memeking89 said:

I found a problem with the saturn parts where for some reason the some of the parts are too big or too small to fit with the rest of the rocket

Check if you have old Rescale patch from Extras folder somewhere in Gamedata. It's not needed for BDB 1.10 and may actually break some parts.

Edited by biohazard15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, memeking89 said:

I found a problem with the saturn parts where for some reason the some of the parts are too big or too small to fit with the rest of the rocket

 

8 minutes ago, biohazard15 said:

Check if you have old Rescale patch from Extras folder somewhere in Gamedata. It's not needed for BDB 1.10 and may actually break some parts.

I would second the above advice from Biohazard. That patch no longer exists but it might still be there from an older install. If this is not the case please post a couple of screenshots and your modulemanager log and configcache.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Zorg said:

We havent dug too deep into it yet but the current thinking for nuclear stages is to probably cherry pick from various proposals in order to come up with a part set that is useful to players. So large stack docking ports, lateral docking ports (to lash stages together in orbit), dedicated mounts etc. If that proposal is what I think it is it does actually cover most of that but we may look at more than one source.

It's this proposal: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19680009673/downloads/19680009673.pdf

gdpBMFT.png

Image taken from the linked documentation.

Five nuclear stages plus a crew module for a Mars round trip, with versatile modular construction for potential utility outside of Mars missions. What you described would cover pretty much everything for the propulsion aspect of this, but not the crewed portion of the spacecraft (though that could probably be easily kitbashed).

Edited by septemberWaves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I had promised I would hold this article until after the release of the phase 1 Saturn BDB update.  To be clear this was a decision I made, but CobaltWolf was aware of this for a while.

 

Saturn C-2 and C-3, the Unflown and Unloved Rockets in the Saturn Family

 

Spoiler

The Saturn family all started because DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, was looking to the future of the fledgling space program.    DARPA, often shortened to ARPA to seem less militant, had money and a goal of getting an American Astronaut into space.   DARPA utilized this project to push technology to ensure space dominance by the United States.  DARPA approached the nearly out-of-work ABMA or Army Ballistic Missile Agency and Von Braun to utilize their rocketry know-how to build a cheap large, diameter rocket to get payloads to space.   The Projected growth in the size of satellites is somewhat staggering and astounding.   Mind you all; this was still in the days when a Digital computer was the size of a large school.

Von Braun and the team immediately made a significant compromise to keep things cheap and quick.  They would reuse the tooling for both their Redstone and Jupiter missiles.   With this tooling, they could make cylinders any length they wanted at the diameter of these two rockets.   This decision added mass and complexity to the design but likely cut several years off its design process.   Of course, this Cluster stage was called Juno V, as we all know.   The Juno V stage would be the basis for several rockets and rocket stages before finally flying as the Saturn S-I stage a few years later.   ABMA and Von Braun proposed to DARPA that the rocket should be as modular as possible so that different parts could be swapped from one rocket to the next to make a new other rocket.   In early 1960 these building block stages were as follows:

·         Juno V (C-1) What would later become the S-I and, after modification, the S-IB

·         Juno V (C-2) Similar to the above but 65" shorter to reduce maximum fuel and oxidizer to 650,000lbs

·         S-I Monohull Replacement monohull for the C-1's Juno V

·         S-I Monohull Replacement for the C-2's Cluster tank with a monohull, shorter than the C-1's Monohull option.

·         S-I New twin F-1 Engine first stage for C-3 of 320" diameter, monohull construction

·         S-II-260 (C-2) 4 engine 260" Diameter stage for C-2

·         S-II-320 (C-3) 4 engine  320" Diameter 2nd Stage for the C-3

·         S-III (C-2/C-3) 2 J-2 engine 220-260" Diameter stage, usable as the 2nd stage on C-2 or the 3rd stage on C-3

·         S-IV 220" (C-1)  Original four RL10B-3 powered stage for the C-1 rocket

·         S-IV 240" (C-1) Finalized six RL10A-3S powered stage for the Saturn I Rocket

·         S-IV (C-2) 240" Four RL10B-3 powered upper stage for the C-2 rocket

·         S-IV (C-3) 240" six RL10B-3 powered upper stage for the C-3 rocket, an RL10A-3S powered version would be the final C-2 variant

·         S-IVB (C-1 & C-2) Standard S-IVB-100 from the Saturn IB rocket*** Post decision for the S-IVB for Saturn IB.

·         S-IVC (C-3) 260" S-IVB design with inline (nose to tail) docking for similar S-IVC stages to allow building in space and refueling of the S-IVC stages.

   *** As above

·         S-V (C-1/C-2/C-3)  Centaur C.   A stage loosely related to  Centaur that would carry its insulation to stage ignition and then burn for departure.  Power was by 2x RL10B-3 engines, and the skin was thicker, making it no longer a proper Balloon tank structure.   Extra HTP Peroxide tanks for extended use of the Reaction Control System.

Some notes here:

1.       The S-IV (C-2/C-3) jettisoned much of its insulation by mass at stage ignition.   The rocket did not discard insulation before stage ignition to reduce boiloff during any early cruise portions of the flight.   The same is true for the S-V stage.    

2.       The RL-10B-3 is the uprated "XLR-119" that we have heard about for years but never knew much about.   It is unclear how Pratt and Whitney applied any Nomenclature to their engines, so when more information is available, we may be able to share it.  The designed thrust (never reached in testing) was 20,000lbs force.

3.       The RL10-A3S is not an uprated RL10A-3 but rather just an RL10A-3 with Saturn-specific modifications.  Thrust is still 15,000lbs force.

4.       Initially, the H-1 engine topped out at about 188,000lbf thrust.  Latter, Saturn I's would fly at 200,000lbf thrust, and there was room to grow to about 250,000lbf thrust via the H-2 Engine upgrade.   While not much is known about the latter H-2, we know it was a basic H-1 with a new type of Turbopump that was faster and more efficient, which allowed the pressure in the combustion chamber to be raised, creating more thrust.

5.       Much of this article is based on the Preliminary design for the C-2 from Marshal Space Flight Center (e.g., ex ABMA.)   These building blocks were not "Solid" and could still change… Just look at the S-IV stage for Saturn I… it grew 20" in diameter and gained two engines after said PDR was released!

6.       North American Aviation, the designer and fabricator of the S-II stage, chose to delineate the various S-II stages by their diameter as the stages were unique in each diameter.  So, Saturn V's S-II stage was called S-II-396, for example, the last number being the average diameter of the stage in inches.  Since only one S-II stage was proposed for each of these rockets at the specified diameter, we will use the same terminology in the document.

7.       KSP scale and BDB are referenced in this document.   KSP is Kerbal Space Program, and BDB is the Bluedog Design Bureau mod for Kerbal Space Program.   The intended original audience of this document.

8.       While this document lists the S-IVB-100 as appropriate for the Saturn C-2, the Saturn C-2 was canceled about the same time as the development of the lower massed Orbital vs. Lunar Saturn S-IVB.  

 

 

 

 

Saturn Stage Nomenclature:

NASA and ABMA/MSFC did an abysmal job with stage designations. ABMA/MSFC made many assumptions that you knew what rocket you were talking about say the S-I stage.  

1YJZ9u4.png

The above text is directly from The Saturn C-2 Preliminary Design Phase I document.   Utilizing the S-I stage, the differences between the C-1 and C-2 stages are relatively minor… the C-2's S-I is shorter and carries 200,000lbs less fuel.   Conversely, the C-3's stage is an all-new 320" diameter monohull with 2 of the new F-1 engines.   But they are all called S-I.  Same with S-II and S-IV, each rocket with one of these stages has a unique, or nearly unique, stage.      For clarity, any stage named in this document will have its base rocket in parentheses, e.g., S-I(C-3.)    Please note that there are no references to an S-IB-2 as listed on Astronautix or Wikipedia (quoting Astronautix.)    That appears to be a fictitious name to separate it from the Saturn IB's S-IB stage on Astronautix.    As stated above, we will use North American Aviation's designation for their various S-II stages because they A) make sense and B) give you the size of the thing in a straightforward package.

 

Building Block S-I:

The S-I stage on the C-2 rocket differed slightly from the Block 1 Saturn I Rocket that first flew on 10/27/1961.   The significant structural changes were in shortening the stage by 65" to reduce fuel capacity to a maximum of 650,000lbs between the fuel and oxidizer.   There were no drawings with the S-I stage carrying fins on the C-2 rocket that the author could find.

Like the Saturn I rocket, the S-I stage for this rocket was large, kludgey, and the only thing it had going for it was low cost to begin manufacture due to the reuse of many of the Redstone/Jupiter tools.

 

 

0FF29on.png

 

Building Block S-I Monohull:

No NASA designation was listed for this unique Saturn C-2 development.   Designed as a production standard for the C-2's S-I stage, the Mono-hull used 8 H-1 engines in a single ring around the outer edge of the stage.  None of the engines were particularly submerged like the original Cluster S-I described above.   Fins were not planned on this stage due to how it was to be constructed.   The total tank and engine length is 496" long. Compared to the S-I Cluster stage at 1915" long. A significant size shrinkage can be seen.  This height and mass reduction led to improvements in payload to orbit and total rocket size.  The suggested designation is S-IM(C-2) M for monohull in this case.

 

 

C6XxSRj.png

 

With a modest estimated 30" stretch, the S-IM(C-2) could become the S-IM(C-1) for Saturn I rockets.   No document found to date covers the Saturn I usage, however.     Stretched size is estimated based on adding 200,000 of fuel and oxidizer back onto the first stage.

While no Solid first stage was ever designed for the C-2 rocket, it is likely that any of the Saturn I Solid first stages would have worked in situ.  

 

                Building Block: S-I (C-3)

Here, we see the first vestiges of what would become the Saturn V moon Rocket emerge.   The F-1 engine is, for the first time, planned on a rocket stage; a large monohull stage of 320" diameter is planned.    Two versions of this stage are designed based mainly on the positioning of the engines.   The wider stance of engines allows enough room for a 3rd engine in the center of the rocket should it be needed (and this is the drawing we have.)   The more economical version, smaller in its maximum diameter, has the two engines 45" closer together.      The gross dimensions are 320" main diameter by 1092" long from the bottom of the F-1s to the top of the upper tank lip.

 

 

5gWQl8C.png

 

For the thrust structure, three different options were studied.   From the standpoint of reliability and cost, the main drawing has the most efficient, but it is the second tallest option, and height adds weight in this case.   Included is an illustration of the three thrust structure choices.

Thrust Structure options and descriptions:

·         Option A) Gains 10" in excess height off the baseline drawing.    Engines are moved 45" closer to the center. The change reduces instant yaw/pitch if an engine out situation arises but does not effectively provide any efficiency or drag reduction.  

·         Option BASELINE)  standardized stage structure.   Base structure design can be reused in future rocket stages.   Not the most efficient for weight or height

·         Option C)  Reduces the total height of the stage by a staggering 100." While this shortening of the stage potentially reduces overall mass, it significantly increases complexity.  Likely a 2nd set of turbopumps would be required.

 

dkTCp8O.png

 

                Building Block S-IS (C-3)

In a departure from the norm at the time, the C-3 was planned with an alternative "low cost," Solid rocket stage to repace S-I (C-3.)    In drawings, the rockets used appear to be four-segment UA-1204s, but they lack the Liquid TVC injection tanks.   Likely instead of 7x 4segment Rockets, it would be 6x 5 or 6 segment rockets to deliver a similar thrust.  This leaves enough room for TVC liquid injection tanks.   The drawing is missing all scale references, and it appears to have a diameter of greater than 354" 354/3 is approximately 118" lending credence to the thought of a 120" SRM utilized in this stage.

 

 

CXnpfzP.png

Building Block S-II-260 (C-2):

Between 1959 and June 1960, it was determined that the proposed S-III stage for the C-2 rocket would be too small.  Further, the 220" diameter of the tank caused issues with bending moments when combined with the 260" first stage diameter.   The decision was made to move the S-III to the C-3 rocket at this juncture and then build a smaller 220" Diameter S-II stage for the C-2 rocket with four engines.   Quickly, this again fell by the wayside as the 220" diameter did not work without severe compromise on the C-2 rocket.   The final stage, a 260" by approximately 700" tank and engine stage, would provide enough thrust for the largest then planned payloads to orbit. 

 

 

dS1Nr2F.png

 

 

                Building Block S-II-320 (C-3):

When conceptualizing the need for a bigger rocket than the C-2, the engineers at MSFS quickly conceptualized the new monohull S-II stage for the C-3.   Designed here first at 320" diameter, before being shrunk down to fit on the C-2 rocket as an S-III replacement, the C-3's S-II-320 design was the most complete before canceling.   While drawings for the C-2 S-II-260 sometimes show an individual hydrogen feed to each engine, the author believes that the combined twin feed depicted here would continue production as it did on the S-II-396 stage Saturn V.

 

otJWCvU.png

 

Building Block S-III (C-2 and C-3):

In the face of the growing payload requirements, the 220" S-III stage was deleted from the C-2 Program.  The S-II-260" stage replaced the S-III stage.  The S-III stage would evolve into a 260" stage very briefly but was never assigned to a Rocket in that size.   Instead, the S-III was removed from consideration for the C-3 rocket when S-II-320 was expanded from 260 to 320" diameter.   There was no attempt at designing a 320" diameter version of the S-III.

 

 

xL8NVLA.png

 

This image is from a different source and predates the 260" size increase.

 

 

 

Building Block: S-IV(C-1, C-2, and C-3)

As initially conceived, the S-IV stage would be the same between the C-1, C-2 and C-3 rockets.  It would be a 220" diameter Hydrolox stage powered by 4x of the still-to-be-built LR119 aka RL10B-3 engines.   Quickly it was realized that the C-3 could take advantage of a larger S-IV stage and it was expanded to 240" with 6x of the RL10B-3 engines.  As progress was made on the other stages, the decision to eliminate the 220" diameter for the S-II(any) and S-III(any) stages had an impact on the S-IV.  Why make it with two diameters if 220" is bad?  The S-IV became 240" across all three rockets.   Differences being limited to tank profile and overall tank length between each of the Rockets, engines excluded.  The S-IV(C-1) and S-IV(C-2) are similar except for insulation.  The S-IV(C-3) is slightly longer than the S-IV(C-2) as well.  The engine mounts and interfaces to lower stages remaining consistent for each of the 3 iterations of the S-IV stage.   Due to a looming cancelation of the RL10B-3, it was decided to convert the S-IV stage for the C-1 and C-2 Rocket to a 6 engine design.   The six-engine mount already planned for the S-IV (C-3) would be utilized with the lower power RL10A-3.    In the case of the S-IV(C-3) the design was altered to a single J-2 engine.  This set of engine switches would eventually lead to the optimized S-IVB that flew to space on the Saturn I and V rockets.   Only a few minor changes were required with the decision to utilize the RL10A-3 from the Centaur.  These new engines, designated RL10A-3S, only have modifications to allow the centaur engine to interface with the Saturn S-IV rocket stage.  One other significant change existed between the C-1 S-IV and the C-2's S-IV.  The S-IV(C-2) utilized an add-on,  jettisonable insulation blanket outside the standard S-IV tankage to reduce boiloff before engine ignition during the coast phase.  These panels surround the conic and cylindrical portions of the tankage up to the LOX portion of the tank.  There are also extra thermal blankets between the top of the S-IV(C-2) stage and the Instrument Unit (IU).   Internally, additional insulation is added between the Hydrogen and Oxygen tanks.    The Larger S-IV(C-3) with its longer tank utilized the same discardable insulation for use up to engine ignition.   The S-IV stage had the most in common structurally from one Saturn rocket variant to the next.   During the creation of this document, I could find zero drawings of a C-2 S-IV at 240".   The C-3's S-IV disappeared simultaneously as the decision to fly Saturn with the S-IVB stage.  

OgwXssV.png

C-I S-IV-220" Mockup note 4x RL10-B-3 engines.  Note the "blown out" scallops to inter-mesh with the 240" interface on the S-I to S-IV interstage.  These would become almost smoothly cylindrical on the 240" version of this stage.

xgcNdIC.png

Saturn C-2 S-IV-220" drawing (note the similar length vs the Saturn C-1/S-1's S-IV?)  

 

 

                Building Block Interlude, the Saturn S-IVB and S-IVC (no, not the ETS one!):

While not designed or even really thought out at the point of the C-2 rocket preliminary design, we can not afford to ignore the S-IVB and it's S-IVC sibling.    The S-IVB stage took a fair but overly complex S-IV stage and replaced it with a higher thrust but similar total Delta-V and a much simpler stage.   With the S-IVB we can have a larger payload fairing.  This means the S-V stage can carry less external insulation.    The S-IVC introduced slush fuel LH2 and end-to-end docking ports.  All of the changes were planned to bring about the orbital construction of a Lunar rocket.  The S-IVC stage was proposed to fly the Command/lander module of a Saturn C-3 to a Lunar landing.  An Un-crewed Lunar lander C-3 would launch with 1x S-IVC,  A second C-3 drone ship equipped with a PLF to protect the S-IVC would then launch rendezvous with the on-orbit C-3 stack and dock nose to the tail of the on-orbit C-3 stack.  Then a 3rd S-IVC would launch with a small tug attached.   From here, several refueling flights and a crew delivery flight would be flown before sending the stack off to the Moon.

 

 

7YJ1Biq.png

 

uw2yc6Q.png

Yes S-IVC existed in 1962!  On Paper.

 

Building Block S-V, not your daddy's Centaur:

The S-V stage is loosely based upon the Centaur that flew on Atlas and Titan rockets.  However, it is not the same stage beyond initial concepts and broad shapes.   Initially called Centaur C by Convair and the newly named Marshal Space Flight Center, the S-V stage would support greater payloads and longer coast times than pre-SOFI Centaurs.   The tanks' skin thickness was almost tripled to support these longer flight times and greater payloads, making them self-supporting or monocoque.   These improvements had the benefit of reducing boiloff as the tank's maximum pressure level was significantly higher.   Additional propellant bottles for the cold gas RCS system were added.   Finally, the detachable insulation was thickened.  All these changes translate into a rocket stage that has the overall performance of a Centaur but can last longer in space and or carry a heavier payload.     Of course, the additional mass of all these changes needed new engines; as mentioned in the S-IV section above, Pratt and Whitney were working on the LR119/RL10B-3 for the USAF, and they would power the S-V stage.  

Two factors prevented Centaur C from ever flying on Saturn.

1.       Cancelation of the RL10B-3 Hydrolox engine and its increased performance

2.       The failure of the early Centaur test flights on Atlas-Centaur

When NASA took over the development of the failing Centaur, they changed the designation scheme that Convair had in place.   The Atlas Centaur's stage, which was initially Centaur B, was moved to Centaur D, with each successive version of the Centaur D being designated as D.1, D.5 etc.   The then non-existent but on paper S-V Centaur C became the S-V Centaur E simultaneously.   The initial flight version would be Centaur E.1.  This causes some fractures in the documentation of the Centaur program.   Something that is a severe mess even today as the modern incarnation of Convair, Lockheed Martin has their own new 3rd designation systems for the Centaur stage.

 

4zylxYQ.png

 

The S-V Centaur C (latter Centaur E) stage

 

NASA's whole 1970s space program would have been vastly different had Centaur S-V proceeded.  Titan IIIE and IIIF would not exist, and a different launcher would be used to place a myriad of satellites in orbit.

 

Utilizing Building block designs to make a Rocket:

Von Braun et al at what is now known as Marshal Space Flight Center, and then known as the Army Ballistic Missile Administration out of the Redstone Arsenal, were quite adept and slapping two rocket parts together and getting a third functional rocket out of the mess.   Of all rocket design centers at the time, they were the leaders of this "cost-effective" process.  

With these blocks as designated above, a myriad of rockets can be constructed.    My favorite combination of the S-I(C-1) with the S-III(C-3 260") to launch A Full up Apollo CSM and LEM is a prime example of this.  

 

If you have played around with these building blocks yourself, I am curious about what you have built.

 

Sources: (Primary)

NTRS 19740076058

NTRS 19630045066

Sources: (Secondary)

Stages to Saturn

En.wikipedia.org articles on Saturn Rocket family

This document is not meant to generate anything more than knowledge of what the Saturn C-2 and C-3 programs were about.   The C-2 rocket can comfortably be built in BDB at this juncture with a couple minor and one major part tweaks currently not in the game.   The C-3 Rocket with it's 320" Diameter is a bit of an odd duck.  8.128 meters in real world diameter equates to 5.25m in KSP scale almost exactly. (5.202m at exactly 0.64 scale.)   This would entail a whole bunch of major re balancing to get down to 5m or would require a new size.   Something I doubt the BDB devs are keen to add so late in KSP1's life cycle.

 

Edited by Pappystein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, septemberWaves said:

It's this proposal: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19680009673/downloads/19680009673.pdf

gdpBMFT.png

Image taken from the linked documentation.

Five nuclear stages plus a crew module for a Mars round trip, with versatile modular construction for potential utility outside of Mars missions. What you described would cover pretty much everything for the propulsion aspect of this, but not the crewed portion of the spacecraft (though that could probably be easily kitbashed).

Ah yeah I have that one. I got the NERVA II diagrams from those docs. Its definitely an interesting one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Pappystein Great info. Yeah, when I made C-3 I had to use 5m tanks from stock and other mods. You're able to do a C-3, just not a BDB C-3, which is fine. Restock gives the stock 5m tanks a good coat of paint and you can use engine plates, both stock and modded, in order to make the C-3 descent imo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saturn C-1-Agena (Developmental\Research\Whatever flight)

I first learned of this rocket from the book "Taming Liquid Hydrogen", a NASA History Series book about Centaur. It was mentioned as a substitute for Atlas-Centaur for Surveyor launches. I failed to find any drawings of this rocket - at this point, I'm not sure if there were any.

Anyway, here's my take on this concept.

 

OVZ7cOu.png

Here it is, sitting on the launchpad. Saturn are in their Block I configuration. Agena is Agena-B (the proposal was made before D went operational). Tower is omitted for this build. Payload is one of my SurveyoRangers, weight is 482kg. The whole lander-Agena assembly weight is about 2 tons.

KtRrlGT.png

Liftoff. Surface TWR (KSRSS CCAFS 2.5x rescale) is healthy 1.66. In fact, this is one of few Saturn-I\IB builds that does not require lofted trajectory.

jHfaJjI.png

As you can see, I've decided to put Agena and payload in a 1.875m fairing, SLV-3B style. The real proposal would probably do the same... waaait a sec... now I wonder about SLV-3B's origins...

NtSQfqE.png

h5tJ1Qo.png

1st and 2nd stages separation.

lLzpBPA.png

lwWl9ZM.png

Jettisoning the fairing.

wnGu8WH.png

Here you can see the SurveyoRanger and Agena.

O6mfRQd.png

I've used PVG for this launch, with 150km circular orbit. As you can see, the rocket is noticeably overpowered for such payload.

VeG4bYu.png

Separating Agena from S-IV.

Notes:

1) As mentioned above, Saturn is overpowered for this mission. There was about 45% fuel left in S-IV - more than 2000 m\s of dV. On top of that, Agena had almost 2400 m\s of dV. In context of 2.5x KSRSS, that's interplanetary numbers, and not just for Mars or Venus.

2) This certainly has potential, if you make S-IV restartable - which was quite possible to do IRL. All you need is some form of ullage and RCS. Aw, just add a couple of S-500 APS instead of two separation SRMs.

3) That Agena ring\fairing base has collider issues - I've added a decoupler and tried to fire it, but the ring didn't separate clearly and started to "dance" around Agena. Or maybe it's one of Agena parts. Needs further investigation.

Edited by biohazard15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, biohazard15 said:

Saturn C-1-Agena (Developmental\Research\Whatever flight)

I first learned of this rocket from the book "Taming Liquid Hydrogen", a NASA History Series book about Centaur. It was mentioned as a substitute for Atlas-Centaur for Surveyor launches. I failed to find any drawings of this rocket - at this point, I'm not sure if there were any.

Anyway, here's my take on this concept.

 

  Hide contents

 

 

Here it is, sitting on the launchpad. Saturn are in their Block I configuration. Agena is Agena-B (the proposal was made before D went operational). Tower is omitted for this build. Payload is one of my SurveyoRangers, weight is 482kg. The whole lander-Agena assembly weight is about 2 tons.

 

Liftoff. Surface TWR (KSRSS CCAFS 2.5x rescale) is healthy 1.66. In fact, this is one of few Saturn-I\IB builds that does not require lofted trajectory.

 

As you can see, I've decided to put Agena and payload in a 2.5m fairing, SLV-3B style. The real proposal would probably do the same... waaait a sec... now I wonder about SLV-3B's origins...

 

 

1st and 2nd stages separation.

 

 

Jettisoning the fairing.

 

Here you can see the SurveyoRanger and Agena.

 

I've used PVG for this launch, with 150km circular orbit. As you can see, the rocket is noticeably overpowered for such payload.

 

Separating Agena from S-IV.

 

Notes:

1) As mentioned above, Saturn is overpowered for this mission. There was about 45% fuel left in S-IV - more than 2000 m\s of dV. On top of that, Agena had almost 2400 m\s of dV. In context of 2.5x KSRSS, that's interplanetary numbers, and not just for Mars or Venus.

2) This certainly has potential, if you make S-IV restartable - which was quite possible to do IRL. All you need is some form of ullage and RCS. Aw, just add a couple of S-500 APS instead of two separation SRMs.

3) That Agena ring\fairing base has collider issues - I've added a decoupler and tried to fire it, but the ring didn't separate clearly and started to "dance" around Agena. Or maybe it's one of Agena parts. Needs further investigation.

 

I think the 200/500 pods are too big for the S-IV. It might be easier to put an extra set of Sep motors to serve as ullage. 

Actually, does anyone know if the RL-10 can do that gas pressure release ullage thing? Where the engine will spray some of its fuel to create a tiny bit of thrust before ignition? 

Edited by GoldForest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GoldForest said:

@Pappystein Great info. Yeah, when I made C-3 I had to use 5m tanks from stock and other mods. You're able to do a C-3, just not a BDB C-3, which is fine. Restock gives the stock 5m tanks a good coat of paint and you can use engine plates, both stock and modded, in order to make the C-3 descent imo. 

The NTRS document from 1963 I had to get out of "it should be classified" purgatory.   That was fun.   A long story that points to the professionalism of the professionals in the NASA administration.   I was blessed to have a phone conversation with several of them in addition to E-mail communications for my FOIA requests.     I think they were shocked that over half of the documents I was looking for were at one point ALREADY on the NTRS PUBLIC server and were sequestered from public use.  While I didn't get access to most of the documents I requested.  That was mostly because they were from commercial entities and they have/deserve additional protections.  

Sorry for the bad formatting.   I spent almost 4 hours trying to post that article this AM.   Kept getting errors (up to and Including website Grammerly undoing all the changes that I had done in Word-processor Grammerly.)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

I think the 200/500 pods are too big for the S-IV. It might be easier to put an extra set of Sep motors to serve as ullage.

That would work for Agena, but not for S-IV - you'll need RCS for attitude control (Agena already has RCS). I'm not sure if there was any sort of RCS assembly capable of steering S-IV in first half of 1960s, though. S-200 + ullage SRMs, maybe, mimicking Agena-B setup? S-IV certainly has enough space and spare dV for that.

(That's why I absolutely love this game, this mod and this forum: there are moments you feel like sitting with von Braun and arguing with him about rocket designs.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/16/2022 at 5:47 PM, CobaltWolf said:

Bluedog Design Bureau v1.10.0 "Луна"

U7nsIzU.png
(Click image to see update album)

DOWNLOAD
WARNING: THIS UPDATE WILL BREAK EXISTING SAVES AND CRAFT FILES
GITHUB  |  SPACEDOCK

 

Changelog:
v1.10.0

New Content and features

- BIG REVAMP OF SATURN, APOLLO & SKYLAB!!

 

CPKu1xz.png

 

Apollo

- New Apollo capsule with multiple variants including Skylab and Boilerplate variants
- Official PBR support for Apollo capsule via Textures Unlimited with custom PBR textures (Thanks to Truthful Gnome)
- New block II SM with realistic SIM-bay and alternate bay interiors
- Apollo CM terrestrial landing heatshield with legs and retro motors
- New SIM-bay experiments and revamped sub satellite
- New LM with independent legs and silver MLI variant
- New LM and CSM engines
- 16 new surface experiment parts based on the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package (ALSEP). Requires Breaking Ground DLC.
- Multiple R4D rcs variant blocks
- LM MESA experiment, goo experiment based on RTG cask, and cosmic ray detector
- Revamped ETS advanced Apollo service modules and mission modules
- revamped AARDVARK block I and block II, plus unpressurised segment.
- new accurate CADS docking port in passive and active models (1.25m)
- Apollo Boilerplate CM and SM
- New Apollo SM Doppler Antenna (used on ASTP mission)

 

nQBRqwg.png

 

Saturn

- All new Saturn V at correct real world to KSP scale ( S1C and SII now 6.25m, SIVB 4.25m).
- Multiple variant lengths for S1C including various stretches for MLV as well as common bulkhead variant.
- Variants for S1C engine mount
- Multiple mounting truss options for the SLA. Wide SLA variant with straight walls for larger payloads
- Multiple variant lengths, 5x and 7x engine mount variants for SII.
- SII to 3.75m Generic mount and dedicated 3.75m M1 engine mount.
- Multiple variant lengths, SOFI texture variant and LASS mount option for the S4B
- Variants for Saturn V engine mount
- S1D Atlas style half staging mount and vernier engine
- New inline and radial AJ260 solid rocket motor in multiple length variants
- Revamped and resized Saturn I (first stage 4.25m, S4 3.75m) with multiple length switches
- 6.25m (MLV) and 4.25m (Skylab style), and 3.75m SAF fairings.
- 2.5m Saturn I fairing variant
- Truss adapter for AARDV and Centaur
- New E-1 engine
- New sustainer variant for the F1
- New H2 variant (subtype on the H1)

 

Xmm7yjn.png

 

Skylab

- All new historical Skylab with Breaking Ground based robotics truss for the ATM
- Jettisonable shielding for the orbital workshop with custom PBR texture support via Textures Unlimited for the bare workshop
- Skylab external experiments
- New wet workshop model
- New Venus flyby wet workshop with expanded shielding and 12x solar panels
- New Venus flyby mission module with unpressurised cargo bay, experiments and reentry probes.
- New ETS Spacelab parts
- Aft MDA based on EOSS proposals for expanding Skylab derived from the back

 

9Qwai0g.png

 

Gemini

- parts for Big Gemini conical service module (4.25m S4B diameter)
- Abort tower for Big Gemini

Other

- New Saturn I-based Pegasus micrometeorite satellite
- Replaced old APAS (0.9375m) with new model by Benjee10. Compatible without conflict with Benjees own mods (Habtech, SOCK etc)
- Apollo Soyuz Test Project (ASTP) docking adapter and experiment
- APAS 75 docking port from ASTP. Compatible with corresponding Soyuz base counterpart being added to Tantares.
- New Agena Horizon Sensor part (definitely apollo related)

 

Uc25qDL.png

 

Updates and Enhancements

- Update bundled Waterfall to 0.8.1
- Some solar panel EC output balancing
- Minor science balancing
- New Agena Avionics Unit 'split' paint variant
- DCSS 2.5m Fairing Base paint variants (white, black, and gray)

Bug fixes

- Fix more typos
- Minor tag fixes
- Fix Delta IV engine shroud texture

 

ltacVH4.png

massive congrats on full release! now that apollo is completely revamped, will the manual be updated as well? i'm m assively struggling finding all the correct parts and pieces...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interlude: Apollo to Skylab:

January, 1974: Mariner 10 performs its first flyby of the planet Mercury, making it the first spacecraft to make a close approach to the innermost planet. This first flyby passes over the southern hemisphere at a medium-to-high altitude, and is primarily designed to match the heliocentric orbital inclination of the Mariner 10 spacecraft with that of Mercury to enable two more flybys later this year, both at lower and more optimal altitudes. Even still, this pass takes mankind's eyes closer to Mercury than ever before, and the spacecraft's grainy film cameras record the planet as it passes below.

6ILWcct.png

Quote

f5EZi0S.png

MIs9XEi.png

 

Also in January 1974, the Delta 2000 performs its maiden flight, carrying the Skynet 2A satellite to a geostationary orbit for the United Kingdom. It will be joined by Skynet 2B later in the year, together providing high-speed secure communications for the British military in Europe and Africa.

Quote

9VUuPqG.png

teDFPBq.png

 

April, 1974: SA-513, the last first-generation Saturn V, rolls to LC-39A for the launch of America's Skylab space station. At the same time, Saturn IB SA-206 is prepared on LC-39B to carry the station's first crew into orbit shortly afterward.

CIdIVwS.png

Quote

bLrr37I.png

TipgQ4H.png

erRuBPU.png

uylTLRZ.png

During launch, the station's micrometeroid shield is inadvertently torn off, taking one of the station's main solar array wings with it and leaving debris which jams the second wing in place. Although the Apollo Telescope Mount is still healthy and is receiving power from all four of its panels, the station is effectively crippled. Temperatures inside the orbital workshop rise to blistering levels, as the heat from the sun easily passes through the station's now-unshielded exterior, and the electrical system is strained to its limits between the environmental crisis and the power shortage. In order to properly prepare the crew of Skylab 2 to repair the station and salvage the mission, their launch will be significantly delayed. During this time they will work out procedures for improvising a new sun shield for the station and releasing its jammed solar wing, practicing ambitious new EVA procedures in the neutral buoyancy facility at Marshall Spaceflight Center and proving just how far the limits of the Apollo/Saturn hardware can be pushed. Meanwhile their spacecraft stands ready atop its milkstool, prepared for its passengers to push envelopes and shatter records...

fgWDIIF.png

 

Rhetorical question: I see everyone makes their Saturn ICs with the 1967-era roll pattern on the S-IVB. It seems more plausible to me that the Saturn IC would also have the Skylab-era pattern with the entirely white aft skirt instead. As I understand it, the change was made for better thermal protection, the same reason each flight-model Saturn V featured a white S-IC intertank structure as opposed to the striped one seen on SA-500D and SA-500F during testing.

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...