CobaltWolf

[1.8.1][1.7.3] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.6.2 "титан" 24/Nov/2019)

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

mama mia

Yesssssss!

Here we go again!

Edited by Mountain Parrot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, biohazard15 said:

As it stands now, OSO as shown in Friznit's wiki is non-functional - the core has only internal antenna, which means no science transmission

The little bits sticking straight down from the arms when deployed are supposed to be the antennas. The arms were missing the antenna module though. Just fixed.

Share this post


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

 

screenshot1083.png

OSEO-A preparing for injection to its target

Nice Agena B Photo,   I can't tell from the Angle but is that the DMagic logo?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2020 at 6:14 AM, Zorg said:

Its been a little while since I've tried to do a Delta IV build but the Etna should have roll control. Rather than the BDB style of giving verniers their own engine module, Nertea used transform multipliers to split the main engine module thrust between the main engine and the exhausts. At 0.1% for the exhaust maybe its too low?

https://github.com/ChrisAdderley/CryoEngines/blob/953f8aeaef08b992bc9fe8a5097f5e268c26c644/GameData/CryoEngines/Parts/Engine/375/cryoengine-etna-1.cfg#L194

 

Just incase you care about it I looked everywhere to find info on it but it actually might be best not to even bother with roll on the rs68. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2020 at 8:07 PM, Pappystein said:

I think it is safe to say we can skip the basic Saturn I/Ib and the Saturn V rockets.

kerb3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dave1904 said:

Just incase you care about it I looked everywhere to find info on it but it actually might be best not to even bother with roll on the rs68. 

 

I really like that Tory Bruno responds to people on twitter but he can be a bit imprecise/ambiguous in his replies sometimes, (unsurprising, he's a busy guy and is just firing off these tweets in free moments in between I presume).

That comment could conceivably be interpreted as it doesnt introduce unwanted torque even though its off center. So the thrust is negligible as far as producing off axis thrust is concerned. However it is still the case that the turbo exhaust provides sufficient thrust to provide roll control.

Screenshot_2020-03-31_00.56.27.png

 

Thats from the official ULA Delta IV users guide

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ph7c6ma0ccmgvn5/delta-iv-user's-guide.pdf?dl=0

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Zorg said:

I really like that Tory Bruno responds to people on twitter but he can be a bit imprecise/ambiguous in his replies sometimes, (unsurprising, he's a busy guy and is just firing off these tweets in free moments in between I presume).

That comment could conceivably be interpreted as it doesnt introduce unwanted torque even though its off center. So the thrust is negligible as far as producing off axis thrust is concerned. However it is still the case that the turbo exhaust provides sufficient thrust to provide roll control.

Screenshot_2020-03-31_00.56.27.png

 

Thats from the official ULA Delta IV users guide

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ph7c6ma0ccmgvn5/delta-iv-user's-guide.pdf?dl=0

 

He is not saying its nonexisting but just saying that its very weak. He did mention it on smarter every day. I just tweeted him hoping for more details :(  I was under the impression it would be relatively effective but if the computers can deal with it then it should not really matter for the lower atmosphere right? 

BTW love your centaur upperstage avatar :)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Just now, dave1904 said:

BTW love your centaur upperstage avatar :) 

I'll have to update my centaur centaur when Cobalt gets to the revamp :D

centaur_centaur.png

Cryoengines RL10A5 for the thumbs and Restock Corgi (RL10C (3?) cluster) for the tail too. 

Edited by Zorg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

He is not saying its nonexisting but just saying that its very weak. He did mention it on smarter every day. I just tweeted him hoping for more details :(  I was under the impression it would be relatively effective but if the computers can deal with it then it should not really matter for the lower atmosphere right? 

It should be noted that you don't need much to control roll of a launch vehicle. It's less for rolling it, and more for stopping it from rolling around on its own. KSP doesn't really model this, but IRL, random external torques are very much a concern. Roll authority on a rocket doesn't have to be very large.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So before I flight "test" any of the various Saturn Rockets I have left, I thought I would do us all a favor and give us an "Identical" payload to get into orbit.  I use quotes because Saturn rockets with the Saturn S-IV stage don't have the space (diameter) to use the Ore tank I was subbing in as a payload.  Again with the exception of the Saturn I rockets that have the S-IV stage, all Rockets have the exact same Large Ore Tank with 1500 units of Ore.   The Saturn S-IV stage equipped rockets however... 2x of the SMALL Ore tanks and a total of 1520 units of ore (it was as close as I could get to 1500 under a fairing!)

 

So here they are by basic family groups.

 

The Saturn I Family (Saturn I, Saturn Ib and a couple simple variants)

Spoiler

First the Saturn I:

gPnLnRg.jpg

Max D/V is 4083 m/s

 

Then the Saturn IB (as flown with Apollo):

BTVU2Fy.jpg

4553 m/s

And then for S&G I did an E-1 Saturn IB (otherwise just as flown with Apollo):

Vrh1wVh.jpg

The E-1s get us an extra 80m/s at 4633

And lastly I subbed in the INT-11 20 foot stretch tankage from the Pafftek Extras folder (does not work with Saturn Rescale!):

dIQ7jkt.jpg

This is still with the E-1 engines but the stretched tank bumps Saturn IB to 4872 m/s

 

So here are the two (and a half) Saturn I replacements from the awesome alt history story Eyes Turned Skyward.  I may have incorrectly designated them so I hope E of Pi can forgive me if I did so!  

 

Spoiler

Saturn Multi-body H-03.   Three of the Saturn S-IF first stage tanks powered by F-1A rocket engines (one each)

Q26KHcq.jpg

max delta-v of 7447m/s

Saturn S-IE Rocket:

1ACLtzP.jpg

On a single F-1A engine we get 5054 m/s delta-V

 

Then the S-IF Rocket:

9VtJG1V.jpg

The extra tank length gives us a bump to: 5448 m/s   Notice the cost is almost 1.4x of the Saturn IB with H-1 engines for only 1.2x more d/v.   Moar is not always better (who'da thunk KSP would teach me THAT!)

 

Again I will re-state that the payload is the same 1500units of Ore in a single Large Ore tank.

 

 

 

now my favorite Members of the Saturn Rocket Family.  Saturn II:

Quick history here.  When Boeing was working on their MLV studies, North American Aviation (a division of Rockewell and soon to be part of Boeing itself) did their own studies.  Focusing on using the S-II stage since it was a NAA product.  

Spoiler

Saturn II INT-17  (HG-3 powered)

vTpBnBt.jpg

Only 6 of the possible 7 engine spots were used on the MS-II Engine plate due to loss of D/V and over-thrust issues.   While the HG-3 engine (available as a re-use of the J-2 Sea Level and J-2S engine bells in Pafftek Extras) is an awesome engine and it's design decisions lead/evolved directly into the RS-25 Space Shuttle Main Engine....  It leaves a little to be desired with stock S-II tankage.   Max Delta-V is 5145m/s or just a little better than the half price EtS Saturn S-1E.  Cost is in the HG-3 engine and the Hydrolox fuel in the first stage (RP-1 is cheaper per d/v)

 

Saturn II INT-18 (Various UA120x powered)

I checked this Rocket in it's maximum (4x UA1207 SRMs) and minimum 4x configs (4x UA1204s)  Some proposals had this rocket flying on 2x UA1205s or 7s as well.  I did not look at those.    The Decoupler for the UA-120x SRMs can not be set higher than UA-1205 (1206 is floating just about the S-II tank and ...well UA1207 setting just looks UGLY with this build.:

INT-18 UA1204 x4:

5Z1UaiN.jpg

6412m/s Delta-v  Pretty good on about the same cost as the INT-17 above!  

INT-18 UA1205 x4:

aIOjl5w.jpg

6608m/s Delta V.  Higher initial thrust do to the longer SRM increases the cost per d/v ratio more in line with INT-17 on this payload.

INT-18 UA-1207:

4ncphuc.jpg

6931m/s Delta V   Cost ratio seems to go back down (I did not do the math except in my head so who knows!) 

 

The INT-18 could have conceivably flown with any Flight ready UA-120x variant but was only proposed for the 3 versions laid out above (with 4x SRMs)  as I stated previously it could fly with LESS SRMS (2 instead of 4)

 

 

Lastly we have as close as I could get to the INT-19.   This is a 4 stage rocket.  Initially 8 "Minuteman First staged derived" SRMs would fire, followed by 4 more as the Rocket was accelerating.  The original 8 would be jettisoned right away on burn-out, unlike Delta Rockets which carry all 9 until all 9 are burnt out.)   This Rocket also ignites the J-2 engines at sea level.  

t01HOOj.jpg

So we get a good cost/vs delta V with a d/v of 6056m/s and the low cost of 110057 credits.   The Algols are actually a little low on thrust but about right for mass and size as Minuteman first stage analogs.   Given IRL the two rockets would look significantly different (never mind the fact that the Algols are, I think, too big in game (0.9375m or approximately 34" IRL they were 40 inches)  I am going to guess this is so Castor could be 0.625m diameter and Algol could be visibly bigger.      Either way a properly scaled down Minuteman first stage SRM would be 0.9375m so it fits and if it fits it ships!...)

Now the next Saturn Sub-family, you all haven't see much of in this forum.  First off neither Astronautix nor Wikipedia pay it much mind, let alone have much data for it.   This was part of what I believe was an Aerojet Study along the lines of the Boeing MLV and NAA/Boeing INT proposals.   

Aerojet studied alternative propulsion choices for Saturn.  They looked at Hypergolic first stages using clustered LR87s,  The M-1 Hydrolox engine for various stages and the AJ-260 260" Monolithic Solid Rocket motor.

Spoiler

Saturn III(S):

kMV53KL.jpg

Yes for those of you playing at home, that is the worlds largest FIRED Solid rocket motor.   The AJ-260 (short version)   And the (S) in the Saturn III designation actually stands for the SHORT motor!  

Low cost at 63636 credits and a d/v of 5012m/s  So almost 12,000 credits cheaper than the comparable Saturn S-IE Rocket.

 

and the one I am concerned about number wise the Saturn III(L):

p6SjZL7.jpg

Cost goes up to 92,047 but at 5658m/s with 2x the first stage propellant...   I think there is some balance issues with the long AJ-260 motor.  But hey they never actually burned this motor so all data is a guess yes?

Please let me know what you think about this format for showcasing the various Rockets.  

You might notice that some of the Rockets are named Sarnus in the pictures above.  I started by using @Friznit's craft files that are in the Dev branch.  I did make some changes (4 APS and 4 Sep motors on S-IVB.)  Those parts were pretty much mission dependent so I went with "worst case" IE most mass, otherwise known as 4 of each.  I love how the separation motors can be combined with the APS... IRL the grey "hump" down the middle of the APS would be the Separation motor so it fits!  Those triangular Separation motors are for the Saturn S-IV stage only (not the S-IVB) at least in real life.

I will continue this tomorrow with the Saturn A and C series rockets that can be built with BDB and with the BDB extras as well.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stick in a Saturn I INT-16 for good measure - it really was a bonkers idea!  Do let me know if you see any significant errors in the wiki or craft files (dimensions can get a bit confusing because I don't use the Saturn rescale patch).  You'll note that when you get to MLV I've deliberately simplified things a little because information (and parts) become a bit more scarce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About tha latest B9PS and SAF update on Github for Dev version: do I absolutely need to update these if I use 1.8.1?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, biohazard15 said:

About tha latest B9PS and SAF update on Github for Dev version: do I absolutely need to update these if I use 1.8.1?

Those versions will run fine on KSP 1.8 even though they are compiled for 1.9, these will be needed for fairing switching which is coming very soon.

So for instance the 1.875m standard base will be switchable between the Titan 3C shroud and the SLV3B shroud (and in the future the Titan 3C prototype shroud and Titan 33B shroud too). Similarly the Delta miniskirt will be switchable between various Delta fairings (Delta II metal, Delta 1000 and Delta II composite etc).

Edited by Zorg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Zorg said:

The little bits sticking straight down from the arms when deployed are supposed to be the antennas. The arms were missing the antenna module though. Just fixed

Thanks!

However, numbers seem a bit too much IMO. Before that patch, I've launched a contracted OSO-1 (600x1400x70deg orbit), using three Biosat (direct 125k) antennas. These work just fine - no problem with direct connection, and OSO sometimes see my early relay network when near equator. I remind that it's on 2.5x rescale with stock (non-rescaled) antenna ranges. 3x750k feel somewhat overpowered for a LEO satellite with three poles acting as antennas, IMO. Even on my "deliberately nerfed" setup. I suggest something less powerful. 125k (same as Biosat antenna) feels nice. Maybe some light buff, let's say to 150-175k.

Another "new" number is probe's EC, which was buffed from 30 to 200. My contract OSO included three "run experiment and transmit" objectives, and EC was was the last thing I had to worry about, thanks to highly efficient solar panel in its sail. Biosat antenna uses 2.5 EC\sec. 5 EC\sec for new antennas certainly does not warrant such a big increase. I suggest reverting it back to 30 EC. This will cover one experiment (IIRC both OSO experiments take 10 Mits, and with 3.333 Mits\second, one experiment would consume around 10 EC) and very likely make you wait a bit for recharge in order to transmit another one.

2 minutes ago, Zorg said:

Those versions will run fine on KSP 1.8 even though are compiled for 1.9, these will be needed for fairing switching which is coming very soon.

Ah, okay then. Thanks for clarifying!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, biohazard15 said:

However, numbers seem a bit too much IMO.

Yeah I put in some quick placeholder values :) We are aiming to rebalance EC, antenna strengths etc more comprehensively in this dev cycle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Zorg said:

We are aiming to rebalance EC, antenna strengths etc more comprehensively in this dev cycle.

I hope the said rebalance would arrive soon. Preferably before another sudden revamp project.

Don't get me wrong - I like the new Gemini. What I don't like is the fact that this Gemini would cause further delays for 1.7.0 release.

 

Also, there is a bug(?) with Agena Multiple Payload Adapter - there are no nodes for it at Agena-size (0.9375m) fairing bases.

Edited by biohazard15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, biohazard15 said:

I hope the said rebalance would arrive soon. Preferably before another sudden revamp project.

Don't get me wrong - I like the new Gemini. What I don't like is the fact that this Gemini would cause further delays for 1.7.0 release.

 

Also, there is a bug(?) with Agena Multiple Payload Adapter - there are no nodes for it at Agena-size (0.9375m) fairing bases.

Reworking the Gemini now has the advantages of

1) it's something that actually has my interest and thus motivation

2) it's time consuming enough to give Zorg and Jso time to do this deep balancing audits of things like mass, antenna power, EC consumption, etc

3) Like a band-aid, the sooner I can rip it off and get people on to the newer versions of stuff the easier it will be to expand upon later.

Last two dev cycles took a whole year for a lot less stuff :P We're still on track for release by, like, some time this summer. 

 

 

I uh. Never figured out how the multiple payload adapter for Agena would work.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

I uh. Never figured out how the multiple payload adapter for Agena would work.

Maybe we can make a dedicated base plate for it with the appropriate nodes so that we dont have to add extra nodes to the fairing bases and also so that it can be used on whatever you like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel that I'm the only one who is absolutely hyped about the Gemini revamp.

Share this post


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

Stick in a Saturn I INT-16 for good measure - it really was a bonkers idea!  Do let me know if you see any significant errors in the wiki or craft files (dimensions can get a bit confusing because I don't use the Saturn rescale patch).  You'll note that when you get to MLV I've deliberately simplified things a little because information (and parts) become a bit more scarce.

Sadly, without some serious "Effort"  The -16 is almost impossible as is to build (to match the drawing atleast.)   I shared with Cobalt (or he I) a picture of the UA1205 layout during the Titan Upgrade process a few months ago for the -16.   The 1205s got rotated this and that way to get 4, 5 or 6 (yes 6!) UA-1205s under a S-IVB upper stage.   I can do a sort of kit-bash but I don't think it will do well actually Flying.  

3 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Reworking the Gemini now has the advantages of

1) it's something that actually has my interest and thus motivation

This line right here makes me so happy!  I don't know why.  

Oh yeah I do.   the Trails parts were a nice placeholder...   But when the textures were revamped and Red was mostly removed...  It sort of lost it;s soul to me (just my opinion.)   And yes I have always wanted 2 part SMs for Gemini.   But, I was OK with what was in BDB (not ecstatic mind you, just OK.)   The Increase skill and complexity of your Maya builds is awe inspiring Cobaltwolf.   It has been good to see how you have grown and adapted over the years.   For the longest Time, I thought the Saturn parts were the best they could be... Then you did Titan and I said *suck it Saturn!*  and now with all the parts that are looking funky amazing and I want to say *Suck it Titan* But I can't bring myself yet to do so cause Titan is still funky amazing!!!  :)

Please keep up the high-Fidelity modeling and texturing.

Jso, Zorg, Blowfish and anyone else who is helping behind the scenes, thank you as well!  Cobaltwolf might make some of the most amazing models, but he has freely stated you all are what make the mod balanced, and playable.

I would mention as well that Friznit has been doing a heck of a job trying to keep the "un-official" Wiki up to date and also making craft files....  While not directly needed for the mod it makes everything easier for the end player

*and so ends my Monthly thank-you to the devs!*  :D  (ok I kid, this isn't by rote and it isn't about me thanking them out of some sort of obligation,  It is more about me... well just being in awe of what they not only can do but ARE DOING!   When I am struck down in awe I have to say something!)

=================================================================

now I get to try to actually figure out how to make an INT-16 Saturn I fly in ksp....    THANKS Friznit!....    *grr ralfa heka chunka ruka grrrrrrR*    (ends muttley imitation)   :D

33 minutes ago, Mountain Parrot said:

I feel that I'm the only one who is absolutely hyped about the Gemini revamp.

Nyet good player!   I think I spent a good 6 hours admiring the work Cobaltwolf is doing on this on Sunday :P  So no, others of us are also on the train for it.  But we are trying not to hype something that has a lot of complications, no need to cause distractions over it (ok that is what *I* am doing at least!)  That being said,   Yeah I have been...   I think Cobalt would call it BEGGING for this exact update for 3 years?   ever since the Trails parts got re-textured.      Probably the only thing I have begged more and louder for were CTD-156 and AJ260 (and I got the AJ260 so yay!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Straight Eight" Delta 1000 fairing is now up on the dev branch. Make sure to grab the new Simple Adjustable Fairings v1.10 and B9 PartSwitch v2.16. These updates are needed for fairing switching which is now a thing :)

The Delta II skirt now supports both the Delta II and Delta 1000 fairings. Similarly the 1.875m standard base and the SOT agena support skirt now can switch between Titan IIIC and SLV3B options.

screenshot1461.png?width=1443&height=812

screenshot1462.png?width=1443&height=812

screenshot1465.png?width=1443&height=812

screenshot1469.png?width=1130&height=812

screenshot1471.png?width=1443&height=812

screenshot1472.png?width=1443&height=812

Of course more switches will be coming soon and I'll add the straight eight fairing to the standard 1.5m base tomorrow as well. Theres also a couple of part icon issues in the editor which I haven't gotten to the bottom of yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so I still haven't figured out the INT-16....   But I am cogitating on it.   Instead, I already has some photos of a couple other unflowns I wanted to share first.

Spoiler

Lets call this one Saturn A-1+  Cause the Titan on it is a Titan IIIA without transtage.   This one has some parts that are still being worked on by me for an extras patch so cost and d/v are currently not "final correct"   Mostly because this rocket would have flown with Aerozine50 and NTO for fuel in the upper stages and... *SOMEBODY* forgot to set the LR87 Vacuum optimized engines to Hypergolic in their own dang Hypergolic patch! *grabs mirror to glare at self!*

H3SNaur.jpg

Yes that is 4947 m/s with 4 E-1 engines.   If the first stage was filled with AZ50/NTO it would gain a few m/s (fuel densification = more d/v as well all learned from SpaceX)   Sadly the cost would go up quite a bit for the small increase of a few tens of m/s in D/V.   The Titan Rocket has a stock EP-18 engine plate at the bottom of the first stage because the Actual Titan engine mount's don't support being used with an interstage.   While not perfect it works for this situation.

 

Saturn C-2 (1960)   This one has the S-III Stage on it (which was canceled in LATE 1960)

cHUxvKY.jpg

That is basically a E-1 Powered Saturn I with the EtS derived "Saturn S-IVC" Auxiliary/addendum tank and twin engine mount below the S-IV stage.   in this incarnation I placed 2 J-2 engines on the twin engine mount (but it could have been 2x LR87 LH2 Vacuum engines!)     D/V is 4757m/s  and it is only slightly more expensive than the Saturn A-1+ listed above (as the A-1+ was built)

I will say this rocket is actually fun to place payloads into space... and I have flown it with the S-IVB 3rd stage with even more fun (no picture but I will rectify that when I try the INT-16 latter today)

 

Saturn C-2 (1961)

VFUR82F.jpg

With the cancellation of the S-III stage a new S-II (C-2) stage was derived with 4x Hydrolox engines (again could either be LR87 Vac Hydrolox or J-2)

I built this one with E-1s in the first stage and 4x J-2s on the S-II stage.   For a jump in 12,000 credits thereabouts, we gain less than 200m/s Delta V at 4920m/s.   Note this S-II (C-2) stage was made using the Saturn V S-II stage, and tweak-scaling it down to the 3.75m size and removing the center engine.

Saturn C-2 (1961) Repeated!

SgdT3Lk.jpg

So I have mentioned it twice already above on the previous C-2 examples.  The choice for Hydrolox engine was not settled in the 1960/1961 time-frame and either the Aerojet LR87 Hydrolox or what became the J-2 could have been the correct engine.   Thanks to tweakscaling the interstage from the IUS, I was able to fit the LR87 Vac Hydrolox engines on the C-2   I am uncertain about the huge cost drop on this but the delta V did increase to 5014 m/s

 

Saturn C-2 (what AGAIN!)   At time of Cancelation

4C1d4MS.jpg

This is the late 1961 view of the C-2 rocket.  E-1 has been canceled and now 8x H-1 engines are under the Saturn S-I stage.  This version still has the LR87s for the S-II(C-2) stage and this view gives you a good look at the tweakscaled IUS interstage.  4982m/s D/V

And Saturn C-2 at cancelation with view of S-II(C-2) engine  assembly:

7GIyKJ8.jpg

Just so you can see how the LR87s would look under the C-2 Rocket's Saturn S-II stage.

 

 

 

So I will be attempting to fly the INT-16 latter today (I have to go back to work now so.....)   But I thought I would post these pictures to "wet  your appetite" for what I am projecting as an abject failure on my part as a rocket engineer!  :P

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok.  @Friznit CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!

Am0RoeU.jpg

I give you the Saturn INT-16-5 (the -5 denoting 5 total UA-1205s!)

First some in VAB shots including several closeups with issues with how I built this!

Spoiler

So I have the SRMs in 3 different color schemes:   Center is White SRM, White TVC

First pair of 1205s are White SRM and Bi-color TVC tank

and last pair are Standard Black/White with Orange TVC tank:   Will be launching with 4 SRMs at 88.5% max thrust (more at the end)

S2FO3lC.jpg

ij2PYN2.jpg

And Extreme closeups (notice the Parts intersecting each other:

HLQ5P6Y.jpg

d7EB0X4.jpg

ITDsfCV.jpg

lDeCAIL.jpg

 

 

 

Now, I used the Titan LDC 3.125-3.75m Decoupler/interstage inverted with a Titan LDC GCU under the Saturn S-IVB stage.  Sadly the GCU causes interference issues...  But I could not find a solid 3.125m part that wasn't a large tank...   Something for Cobalt to think about when he is looking for a quick part to make... or when the Saturn Rebuild starts, a good part would be a S-IVB stage diameter down to 1 OR 2 (heck or 3 or 4) 1.875m parts in a short profile would be NICE!

 

Now I did two launches with this Rocket.  In the first, because I don't like How Mechjeb flys Solid rocket stages in ascent guidance) I flew it myself...

I made a HUGE mistake.  The TWR convinced me I did not have to loft the S-IVB stage like I would with a Saturn I or a Saturn III(S.)    Well let me tell you all something right now.  Doing a 4x 1x Solid Rocket burn profile (meaning the UA1205s are actually TWO stages)  And attempting a 110km orbit in JNSQ... well I burnt the thing up!

Spoiler

ovotzwa.jpg

DYn6WKK.jpg

C6QzN75.jpg

To this point everything was Hunky-dorey.   Then I staged the 4 SRMs of the first stage and:

FzT9P9Z.jpg

But surprisingly the Core rocket stayed intact!

jW6T9jI.jpg

And here is where I doomed this rocket:

2i2FqNI.jpg

I should have still been climbing aimed at the bug in the Artificial horizon!

Stage "2" and "3" Separation points (I did not turn off the Decoupler in the 3.75mx3.125m cone on this launch!)

rqbAlWk.jpg

And you can see how I use 4x of the Saturn S-IV separation motors in line (right on the top edge) of the Saturn IV APS pods.  I mount the separation motors RIGHT on the top point of the APS so they look like one part from a distance:

aRrCTjn.jpg

As you can see... We are almost to Apoapsis....   And with no pad.... Yeah... Fade to... Red?

Gy42pL7.jpg

 

KER-POW!

I won't show you mechjebs launch.   It is even Grosser.   But I DID make and fly a Saturn INT-16... Just not sucessfuly yet!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

I uh. Never figured out how the multiple payload adapter for Agena would work.

You mean in-game?

Personally I like how Knes did it with Ariane 5 (extra node can be used as visual aid):

mvSijvO.png

Although IMO it's better to make extra node toggleable via B9PS.

Share this post


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.