Jump to content

[1.8.1-1.11.2] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.7.3 "Огромный" 19/Apr/2021)


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, rcollier said:

Does this mean BDB for KSP 1 will be abandoned once KSP 2 is out or is this just a time frame of when the Saturn Revamp will likely begin?

Probably, working on the assumption that KSP2 is good and I can reuse the existing models.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Huh... guess no one here likes the custom made Saturn C-8 Nova I made... *Sad F-1 noises*

I thought I replied to this.   Stupid computer problems...

If C-8 was a BDR and not a BER, I would like it.   Sadly Like SLS (my opinion) C-8 is just a big fat waste of money.  There are easier ways to get a similar payload into Orbit and one of them was built and ground tested (AJ-260s for Saturn V/MLV)

BDR = Big Dumb Rocket

BER = Big super expensive Rocket

However,   I have a BDR way C-8 or bigger could have been made in the 1960s.....    This alternate History POD is free for anyone to take up....  


 

 
 
 
 
Spoiler

POD = Cold war cools?  warms? whatever indicates the bettering of relations between the East vs. West.  Khrushchev lets Kennedy know that Cuba wants Ballistic missiles and that the Supreme Soviet is thinking it is a good idea because of Jupiter in Italy and Turkey.   Khrushchev, instead of deploying missiles, would just like Kennedy to remove the US ones from southern Europe.  And Kennedy/Khruschev work out Vietnam before it becomes a problem.   Taking much of the ICBM missile gap away (no need for people in Florida to flee the state in fear of Nuclear war (no place to build bomb shelters.)       The Newport News Submarine yard can make cylindrical sections big enough for a 12 F-1 engined first stage... I think.   The Submarine building docks can handle HY120 steel in the diameter of a  Saturn V's S-IC and sheet metal is a lot lighter and needs less bulky machinery to make so same space = larger tube diameter.    A Reduced need for the Sturgeon and Los Angeles class SSNs and the Layfayette Class SSBNs would allow the NNS Shipyards to build the first stage for a Giant Saturn.   The cost would be less than Michoud being upgraded.   And there are already ships on-site across the bay at Norfolk Naval yard that could EASILY carry such cargo to the Cape.   This gives you an option of Michoud for Saturn V and NNS for Saturn VIII or IX.       So now go write your alt-history and post it so someone will be inspired to build the parts!   :)   I just hope anyone you inspire works to blend their parts in with BDB look/texture/detail wise!

I will further promulgate what could be Built with 4 locations for parts (instead of the Historical 3 locations)

S-I/S-IA/S-IB for Saturn I and III (Michoud)  Latter upgraded to S-IE/S-IF like in Eyes

S-IC for Saturn V (Michoud)

S-I-8 for Saturn VIII (NNS)

S-II-3 or S-III for Saturn III  (Saturn Ib with an intermediate stage between S-I and S-IVB)  Gets a Full up Apollo CSM and a lander or Cargo pod up into LEO   NAA California

S-II-5 for Saturn V    NAA California

S-II-8 for Saturn VIII (NNS)

S-IVB/S-IVB+ for Saturn I/III/V/VIII   Douglas Aircraft.

Additional Needs beyond the stages:

A cargo ship/barge from NNS to Cape (the capability already exists but Navy wouldn't want to be in the long term shipping biz)

Extra Guppy Aircraft (more S-IVB stages to fly from California)  EST 2 needed

Extra Shipping from NAA California due to extra stages.  1 additional shipping route est.

Obviously this is not taking into account the manufacturing of the M-1 Engine at Aerojet.   Nor the capability of the Aerojet AJ-260.   But it is a way to reduce the costs for a larger than C-5 rocket compared to building it at Michoud (which doesn't really have enough land to expand for larger rockets anyway.)

 

And no for those of you who deep dive into the Space Launch production/history this is NOT a well thought out plan.  I just had some neurons fire and drew this up quickly.

 

The end result is you have Saturn IIIB (with the S-IE or S-IF first stage) as a cost-effective USEFUL launcher after the Nixon ax (assuming Nixon stays in office)

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, rcollier said:

[Kerbalized Sad Face Emoji]

But, if you can reuse the models...

In the end it is too early to speculate/postulate on what KSP2 will look like yet.

Suffice to say there are many reasons that KSP1 SHOULD be abandoned currently... And those SAME reasons can be used to argue why migrating to KSP2 is a bad thing.  

 

SO here is my hope.  

  • The Needed Mods for BDB (Modulemanager, B9PS and DMagicScienceAnimate) are maintained for KSP1.  
  • The parts and CFGs are Cross Platform (KSP1 and KSP2) compatible (excepting any changes to the actual Tech Tree Structure)
  • B9PS maintains and works the same across both (separate from saying it is Maintained for KSP1)

This would allow KSP1 to be supported while KSP2 is the core component with minimal fuss/changes to cfgs.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just did my own Apollo 17 in my 1/4 scale RSS playthrough, and I love how perfectly the new MOL communications dish fits as the LRV's antenna! Plus, by attaching it to a rotator from Infernal Robotics/Breaking Ground, you can make it turn! :o

1Vbbcqm.png?1

Here's the full album:
https://imgur.com/gallery/xE9vyDd

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Pappystein said:

I thought I replied to this.   Stupid computer problems...

If C-8 was a BDR and not a BER, I would like it.   Sadly Like SLS (my opinion) C-8 is just a big fat waste of money.  There are easier ways to get a similar payload into Orbit and one of them was built and ground tested (AJ-260s for Saturn V/MLV)

BDR = Big Dumb Rocket

BER = Big super expensive Rocket

However,   I have a BDR way C-8 or bigger could have been made in the 1960s.....    This alternate History POD is free for anyone to take up....  


 

Spoiler
 
 
 
 
  Reveal hidden contents

POD = Cold war cools?  warms? whatever indicates the bettering of relations between the East vs. West.  Khrushchev lets Kennedy know that Cuba wants Ballistic missiles and that the Supreme Soviet is thinking it is a good idea because of Jupiter in Italy and Turkey.   Khrushchev, instead of deploying missiles, would just like Kennedy to remove the US ones from southern Europe.  And Kennedy/Khruschev work out Vietnam before it becomes a problem.   Taking much of the ICBM missile gap away (no need for people in Florida to flee the state in fear of Nuclear war (no place to build bomb shelters.)       The Newport News Submarine yard can make cylindrical sections big enough for a 12 F-1 engined first stage... I think.   The Submarine building docks can handle HY120 steel in the diameter of a  Saturn V's S-IC and sheet metal is a lot lighter and needs less bulky machinery to make so same space = larger tube diameter.    A Reduced need for the Sturgeon and Los Angeles class SSNs and the Layfayette Class SSBNs would allow the NNS Shipyards to build the first stage for a Giant Saturn.   The cost would be less than Michoud being upgraded.   And there are already ships on-site across the bay at Norfolk Naval yard that could EASILY carry such cargo to the Cape.   This gives you an option of Michoud for Saturn V and NNS for Saturn VIII or IX.       So now go write your alt-history and post it so someone will be inspired to build the parts!   :)   I just hope anyone you inspire works to blend their parts in with BDB look/texture/detail wise!

I will further promulgate what could be Built with 4 locations for parts (instead of the Historical 3 locations)

S-I/S-IA/S-IB for Saturn I and III (Michoud)  Latter upgraded to S-IE/S-IF like in Eyes

S-IC for Saturn V (Michoud)

S-I-8 for Saturn VIII (NNS)

S-II-3 or S-III for Saturn III  (Saturn Ib with an intermediate stage between S-I and S-IVB)  Gets a Full up Apollo CSM and a lander or Cargo pod up into LEO   NAA California

S-II-5 for Saturn V    NAA California

S-II-8 for Saturn VIII (NNS)

S-IVB/S-IVB+ for Saturn I/III/V/VIII   Douglas Aircraft.

Additional Needs beyond the stages:

A cargo ship/barge from NNS to Cape (the capability already exists but Navy wouldn't want to be in the long term shipping biz)

Extra Guppy Aircraft (more S-IVB stages to fly from California)  EST 2 needed

Extra Shipping from NAA California due to extra stages.  1 additional shipping route est.

Obviously this is not taking into account the manufacturing of the M-1 Engine at Aerojet.   Nor the capability of the Aerojet AJ-260.   But it is a way to reduce the costs for a larger than C-5 rocket compared to building it at Michoud (which doesn't really have enough land to expand for larger rockets anyway.)

 

And no for those of you who deep dive into the Space Launch production/history this is NOT a well thought out plan.  I just had some neurons fire and drew this up quickly.

 

The end result is you have Saturn IIIB (with the S-IE or S-IF first stage) as a cost-effective USEFUL launcher after the Nixon ax (assuming Nixon stays in office)

 

 

 

Imo, Saturn Nova wouldn't have been a waste of money or dumb. It was meant to get humans to Mars and iirc it was the rocket meant for the Mars direct missions using that giant Apollo like MEM (Mars Excursion Module). 

The ONLY reason the C-8 wasn't consider were two things. The major reason? The VAB wasn't tall enough. Though, they could have rectified this by going the SpaceX route and building it outside, or creating a second larger VAB. The second reason was Money. Although, I feel if NASA was planning to send people to Mars back then their funding wouldn't have been cut like it was, but that's just my opinion.

Edited by GoldForest
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Imo, Saturn Nova wouldn't have been a waste of money or dumb. It was meant to get humans to Mars and iirc it was the rocket meant for the Mars direct missions using that giant Apollo like MEM (Mars Excursion Module). 

The ONLY reason the C-8 wasn't consider were two things. The major reason? The VAB wasn't tall enough. Though, they could have rectified this by going the SpaceX route and building it outside, or creating a second larger VAB. The second reason was Money. Although, I feel if NASA was planning to send people to Mars back then their funding wouldn't have been cut like it was, but that's just my opinion.

NASA was planning on sending people to Mars. But they couldn't do that, and the Shuttle, and the space station. They had to present the options and they were at the mercy of the White House and Congress as to what they'd be able to do. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, G'th said:

NASA was planning on sending people to Mars. But they couldn't do that, and the Shuttle, and the space station. They had to present the options and they were at the mercy of the White House and Congress as to what they'd be able to do. 

 

4 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Imo, Saturn Nova wouldn't have been a waste of money or dumb. It was meant to get humans to Mars and iirc it was the rocket meant for the Mars direct missions using that giant Apollo like MEM (Mars Excursion Module). 

The ONLY reason the C-8 wasn't consider were two things. The major reason? The VAB wasn't tall enough. Though, they could have rectified this by going the SpaceX route and building it outside, or creating a second larger VAB. The second reason was Money. Although, I feel if NASA was planning to send people to Mars back then their funding wouldn't have been cut like it was, but that's just my opinion.

Before we derail this whole thing. 

A) GoldForest and I both know what transpired to kill Nova... Namely Saturn C-5 and 1970 to Moon Deadline.  Then when Nova was repurposed for Mars.... well Nixon.  

B) I was providing a way for someone to write an Alt History with a small set of PODs to allow Nova to be built after 1970.   I was also saying why I didn't comment on GoldForrest's build earlier this week (Wednesday?)     No point in getting way off topic and delving into the politics or ramifications.,  

 

At last time, I recall him commenting on Nova, CobaltWolf said he isn't a fan of it nor was he *THEN* considering making it (I am not speaking for him just relaying what he has said in the past on this very forum.)   as I said I DO hope someone makes some Nova Parts and makes them artistically line up with BDB. Because then A) they wouldn't have to make the whole thing (just a few tanks, interstages and engine mounts) and B) because then that person can focus on Payloads instead of a Full up rocket!

 

I also offered an Alternative to Nova that is 100% BDB parts that CAN perform the same mission.   If the MEM payload can actually interface with the BDB rocket (I haven't downloaded it but it is an interesting lander.) with it's drop tanks and such!

 

Edited by Pappystein
word in **
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

 

Before we derail this whole thing. 

A) GoldForest and I both know what transpired to kill Nova... Namely Saturn C-5 and 1970 to Moon Deadline.  Then when Nova was repurposed for Mars.... well Nixon.  

B) I was providing a way for someone to write an Alt History with a small set of PODs to allow Nova to be built after 1970.   I was also saying why I didn't comment on GoldForrest's build earlier this week (Wednesday?)     No point in getting way off topic and delving into the politics or ramifications.,  

 

At last time, I recall him commenting on Nova, CobaltWolf said he isn't a fan of it nor was he *THEN* considering making it (I am not speaking for him just relaying what he has said in the past on this very forum.)   as I said I DO hope someone makes some Nova Parts and makes them artistically line up with BDB. Because then A) they wouldn't have to make the whole thing (just a few tanks, interstages and engine mounts) and B) because then that person can focus on Payloads instead of a Full up rocket!

 

I also offered an Alternative to Nova that is 100% BDB parts that CAN perform the same mission.   If the MEM payload can actually interface with the BDB rocket (I haven't downloaded it but it is an interesting lander.) with it's drop tanks and such!

 

Nova is one of those ideas where you really don't need to make a dedicated partset for it. The only thing you couldn't necessarily just kitbash out of one of the already existing models is the engine mount. Despite being a much larger, more complicated rocket IRL, as far as the game is concerned Nova really isn't that different from the Saturn V. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, GoldForest said:

The major reason? The VAB wasn't tall enough.

How much height would have been saved if they went with common bulkhead tanks on the 2nd and 3rd stages like Saturn V?  Or was it still too tall even after that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, blowfish said:

How much height would have been saved if they went with common bulkhead tanks on the 2nd and 3rd stages like Saturn V?  Or was it still too tall even after that?

The VAB was built for Saturn V and Saturn V alone. They knew how big the rocket was going to be so built the building to a certain height. (It was just lucky that the Space Shuttle was a lot smaller than the Saturn V and didn't need a new building)

Saturn C-8 is not much taller than Saturn V, but...

Saturn V height: 363.0 ft (110.6 m)
Saturn C-8 height: 430 feet (131 m)
VAB door opening: 
456 feet (139.0 m)

Now, you might be looking at the door height and going, "Wait, the door's taller! How is the C-8 too tall?" You're forgetting one crucial piece of equipment. The unsung hero of the Saturn V and the Space Shuttle. The Crawler.

Crawler height: 
6 to 8 m

That would bring the total height of the vehicle to 137 to 139. 

"Okay, 137 is still within 139."

Yes, but we're forgetting two other important pieces. The Launch Platform and Launch Tower. After that, I'd say the C-8 would stand well over 150 meters tall with all the equipment. 

So to answer your question, would common bulkheads help? Probably not. They probably designed the C-8 with Bulkheads in mind seeing how well they worked on the Saturn V. 

If they didn't and they changed to common bulkheads, it would only save... 5 to 10 meters? Rough guesstimate, and that's being generous. A more believable number would be 3 to 8 meters of height. 

So, can the C-8 fit in the VAB? Yes.
Can it fit with the crawler? Possibly, tight fit.
Can it fit with all the launch equipment? No. 

Of course Nasa could have done something a lot simpler than build a whole new VAB. Two options actually. Build the C-8 outside. Or... cut the roof off of the VAB, extend it upwards a few dozen meters, than weld the roof back on. And before you say modifying a building that much is ridiculous, they did it before. The space shuttle? Too wide for the doors. So they cut the walls open and replaced the bottom 2 or 3 panels of the door with horizontal plates instead of vertical plates. 

9 hours ago, G'th said:

Nova is one of those ideas where you really don't need to make a dedicated partset for it. The only thing you couldn't necessarily just kitbash out of one of the already existing models is the engine mount. Despite being a much larger, more complicated rocket IRL, as far as the game is concerned Nova really isn't that different from the Saturn V. 

Saturn C-8 is a lot different. It has a wider first stage. You would need a new interstage, new fuel tank, and new engine mount. The second stage you can just use the Saturn V first stage for as it's roughly the same height as the proposed C-8 second stage, though a engine mount is kind of needed as the C-8 calls for 8 J-2s.

Edited by GoldForest
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Saturn C-8 is a lot different. It has a wider first stage. You would need a new interstage, new fuel tank, and new engine mount. The second stage you can just use the Saturn V first stage for as it's roughly the same height as the proposed C-8 second stage, though a engine mount is kind of needed as the C-8 calls for 8 J-2s.

You can tweakscale to get the wider tanks and interstages. And I bet I could easily get the engine mounts going as well using tweakscale and things we already have. 

Making a dedicated part set would be nice, but all it is at the end of the day is warping the already existing models. C-8 simply wasn't developed enough to a point where having a dedicated model would bring details to the table that simply tweak-scaling already existing parts wouldn't. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2019 at 9:07 AM, Zorg said:

I hope that if the LR105 thrust adjustment is permanent, it will be a simple matter for you to adjust on your end 0_0

I rewrote the part that handles the Atlas parameters, it now only calls a table. So when I have to make changes I just need to adjust ONE file. Thank you for the head up :)

yesterday I changed the code to handle the flight after sustainer engine cut-off and used a more accurate model.

WrXylpj.gif

 

Spoiler

I'm using the following names for each generation of atlas engines:

  • MA-3 is the first generation (LR79-5)
  • MA-5 is the first upgrde (LR79-7)
  • MA-5A is the second upgrade (RS56)
  • MA-5AS is the RS56 with 4x castor-IV SRBs

Currently the Altas LR-105 has 37% of the real thrust

PiUgo62.png

using the (probably) future setting of 25% of the real thrust does not change a lot the end result. (although for launches with longer sustainer phase it would make more difference)

tKg2o6o.png

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Marcelo Silveira said:

I rewrote the part that handles the Atlas parameters, it now only calls a table. So when I have to make changes I just need to adjust ONE file. Thank you for the head up :)

 

Yay :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, GoldForest said:

The VAB was built for Saturn V and Saturn V alone. They knew how big the rocket was going to be so built the building to a certain height. (It was just lucky that the Space Shuttle was a lot smaller than the Saturn V and didn't need a new building)

Saturn C-8 is not much taller than Saturn V, but...

Saturn V height: 363.0 ft (110.6 m)
Saturn C-8 height: 430 feet (131 m)
VAB door opening: 
456 feet (139.0 m)

Now, you might be looking at the door height and going, "Wait, the door's taller! How is the C-8 too tall?" You're forgetting one crucial piece of equipment. The unsung hero of the Saturn V and the Space Shuttle. The Crawler.

Crawler height: 
6 to 8 m

That would bring the total height of the vehicle to 137 to 139. 

"Okay, 137 is still within 139."

Yes, but we're forgetting two other important pieces. The Launch Platform and Launch Tower. After that, I'd say the C-8 would stand well over 150 meters tall with all the equipment. 

So to answer your question, would common bulkheads help? Probably not. They probably designed the C-8 with Bulkheads in mind seeing how well they worked on the Saturn V. 

If they didn't and they changed to common bulkheads, it would only save... 5 to 10 meters? Rough guesstimate, and that's being generous. A more believable number would be 3 to 8 meters of height. 

So, can the C-8 fit in the VAB? Yes.
Can it fit with the crawler? Possibly, tight fit.
Can it fit with all the launch equipment? No. 

Of course Nasa could have done something a lot simpler than build a whole new VAB. Two options actually. Build the C-8 outside. Or... cut the roof off of the VAB, extend it upwards a few dozen meters, than weld the roof back on. And before you say modifying a building that much is ridiculous, they did it before. The space shuttle? Too wide for the doors. So they cut the walls open and replaced the bottom 2 or 3 panels of the door with horizontal plates instead of vertical plates. 

Saturn C-8 is a lot different. It has a wider first stage. You would need a new interstage, new fuel tank, and new engine mount. The second stage you can just use the Saturn V first stage for as it's roughly the same height as the proposed C-8 second stage, though a engine mount is kind of needed as the C-8 calls for 8 J-2s.

Ah, the Astronautix version is a bit different, I was looking here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31726.0

which looks like it's closer to 121m.  Quick measurements suggest you could shave off 6m with common bulkhead.

I think the major differences are a wider aft skirt (so that the engines can be recessed a bit more) and slightly wider 2nd stage?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, blowfish said:

Ah, the Astronautix version is a bit different, I was looking here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31726.0

which looks like it's closer to 121m.  Quick measurements suggest you could shave off 6m with common bulkhead.

I think the major differences are a wider aft skirt (so that the engines can be recessed a bit more) and slightly wider 2nd stage?

Hmmm. Well the Saturn V tower was 120 meters (according to wiki).

That's 10 meters taller than Saturn V.

If we go with Astronautix,( which I've heard is not all that reliable apparently)

The Staurn C-8 Launch tower would be around 131 meters. Plus the crawler, (which would have to lift the launch platform up off the ground 2 meters) would put it all at 133, roughly. With CMBKH in place and a rough saving of 6m , it would be around 127.

Of course the tower could end up adding more than 10m.

We just dont know. NASA never released the study for the C-8 and if they did I cant find it. The only info we have is, it was considered and it was too big.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it looks like the new Agena and mariner parts are bugged if used in 1.7.3. if i try click on the agena engine in the VAB nothing happens and i can no longer open the part menu anywhere, it also logspams  "ArgumentOutOfRangeException: Argument is out of range. Parameter name: index" funny thing is this only happens in Career mode

heres the log https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dWcshArNZNSvLImC3keNXA027ILs5a_k/view?usp=sharing

i haven't figured out which of the mariner/ranger parts is bugged only that if i try to leave a vessel the game freezes

Link to post
Share on other sites

@GoldForest as far as I know C-8 was the design for direct ascent Apollo and didn't factor into later Mars plans, which I'd also remark, didn't really get that far into the planning/outlining. You can't do a single launch Mars landing/return mission even with a C-8, especially if you're going all-chemical for your propulsion. IIRC the NAR MEM (which is one of the only designs post-Mariner IV) also uses... exotic fuels to make the numbers work.

 

Some more payloads working their way down the pipeline...

4ai9opc.png

\Qo6KOxk.png
bXkw5K8.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

From my admittedly limited digging on the subject, there's some confusion and contradiction around Nova or C-8, not least because Saturn C-8 imagery is often used in articles about both.  It's well-documented that the original C-8 concept was a larger than Saturn "Nova Class" rocket that was considered for direct ascent moon landings but was ultimately discounted in favour of the C-5 concept that eventually evolved into Saturn V - the most detailed close-to-contemporary source I've found is Logsdon, Aug 1969, in which Von B is quoted in June 62, having listed "Nova or C-8 mode" as is fourth and least preferred option primarily because it was more expedient to shoot for C-5

Quote

We at Marshall feel very strongly that the Advanced Saturn C-5 is not the end of the line as far as major launch vehicles are concerned: Undoubtedly, as we shall be going about setting up a base on the moon and beginning with the manned exploration of the planets, there will be a great need for launch vehicles more powerful than the C-5.  All of our studies aimed at NASA's needs for a true manned interplanetary capability indicate that a launch vehicle substantially more powerful than one powered by eight F-1 engines would be required. Our recommendation, therefore, should be formulated as follows: "Let us take Nova or C-8 out of the race of putting an American on the moon in this decade, but let us develop a sound concept for a follow-on Supernova launch vehicle

Ultimately the 8x F-1 C-8 was too big to be assembled at Michoud, would required a parallel programme to C-5 and take over a year longer. 

This does nevertheless indicate an appetite to continue development of bloody big rockets in the post-Apollo era.  Nova, or Supernova, appears to loosely refer to a number of larger than Saturn V concepts submitted by the likes of GD, MM and DA and which, alongside Saturn MLV, were considered for missions to the planets (chiefly Mars).  There is precious little documented because, as we know, funding got cut and shuttle things happened instead.  Confusingly, one of these concepts was apparently called Nova C8, and was "almost identical to Saturn C-8" (according to an uncited comment on wiki).  Apparently MM's 1B concept used 14x F-1's.  That's so  bonkers I'm going to have to try it.

Pics n clicks: my own take on the C-8 uses proc fairings, engine plate and a tweakscaled stock tank for the first stage.  The rest is tweakscaled BDB parts.

TC9neZP.png

Edited by Friznit
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

@GoldForest as far as I know C-8 was the design for direct ascent Apollo and didn't factor into later Mars plans, which I'd also remark, didn't really get that far into the planning/outlining. You can't do a single launch Mars landing/return mission even with a C-8, especially if you're going all-chemical for your propulsion. IIRC the NAR MEM (which is one of the only designs post-Mariner IV) also uses... exotic fuels to make the numbers work.

C-8 was never considered for Mars Direct. If I ever said it was, I was mistaken. It was only used for Moon Direct.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Friznit said:

From my admittedly limited digging on the subject, there's some confusion and contradiction around Nova or C-8, not least because Saturn C-8 imagery is often used in articles about both.

 

23 hours ago, GoldForest said:

If we go with Astronautix,( which I've heard is not all that reliable apparently)

While Astronautix is not reliable and can nicely contradict itself... IT does have a lot of data on Nova.  But almost all of that data comes from Nova (2) Which is the re-purposing of the Nova program after Saturn C-5 was chosen for the ORIGINAL Nova role (Moon landing!)  

Marshal Flight center DID NOT CONTRIBUTE to Nova (2)   Nova (1) was what became the Saturn Program....   The day of the Big change?   President Kennedy's Moon landing speech (or slightly thereafter.)  Marshal (ABMA) was the furthest along with plans for big rockets... they got to go to the Moon.   Everyone EXCEPT Marshal, was told to re-prioritize their Engineers to first support Marshal and the Saturn program and secondly to work on plans for things AFTER the moon.   That is the start of Nova (2).   Most of the companies working on Nova (1) projects ended up as Subcontractors to Marshal Space Flight Center...  And each company was responsible for the detail design of their segment/stage whatever.    Marshal was responsible for Preliminary design, Testing, and actual Space flight SUPPORT.  

Now NASA does not call them Nova (1) or Nova (2)  I am designating them as such to keep things clearer....ish... maybe..

There are 3 big things that make this timeline MUDDY beyond belief.

  1. The Fact that NASA re-used a program name for two distinctly different missions... with less than a 6 month gap between them.
  2. The fact that every Congress-critter in the world that was pro Marshal wanted a bigger Saturn....   And the Fact that the Saturn C-8 was already basically designed (prelim not complete design)  And the fact that reporters by the average are DUMB on the subjects they cover.
  3. Even though an RFI (Request for Information... the first step of any Government design/building project) was never sent to Marshal Space Flight Center, they did re-regurgitate the Saturn C-8 and call it a Nova C-8 with the new M-1 engines for S-II-8.   The key is it was an un-solicited proposal and no NASA money was directly budgeted to MSFC for the development of such a Rocket.   NASA Funds were directly Budgeted to every other contender in Nova (2)

Sources:   Astronautix itself, Wikipedia (Army Ballistic Missile Agency, Marshal Space Flight Center, and supporting documents,  Saturn and supporting Documents and Nova Rocket and supporting documents.)   NASA NTRS servers,   Stages to Saturn,   The Big Book of Warfare, Taming Centaur,  and many others.

CONCLUSION:   THERE ARE TWO NOVA ROCKETS ALREADY IN BDB WITH ENOUGH EXTRA PARTS TO MAKE MANY MORE!

    :)

That being said.... and as I stated previously....   I would love to see a Saturn VIII part set that follows the BDB art style with a Command-Lander Like originally proposed to use in the Moon program.

 

Edited by Pappystein
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Friznit said:

Apparently MM's 1B concept used 14x F-1's.  That's so  bonkers I'm going to have to try it.

You think that's bonkers?

General Dynamics designed a Nova to use SIXTEEEN.

But that doesn't compare to the Martin Marietta Nova with EIGHTEEN F-1s.

But I think both of those don't compare to the Douglas Studies OOST and ROOST. Single stage to orbit, maybe even single stage to Mars, rockets.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

You think that's bonkers?

General Dynamics designed a Nova to use SIXTEEEN.

But that doesn't compare to the Martin Marietta Nova with EIGHTEEN F-1s.

But I think both of those don't compare to the Douglas Studies OOST and ROOST. Single stage to orbit, maybe even single stage to Mars, rockets.

And I don't think any of those use F-1s in Stage 2... Many Novas did!

 

Link to post
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.

×
×
  • Create New...