Jump to content

[STOCK] Saturn V Replica


Bubbadevlin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Bubbadevlin Presents

The Saturn V Replica

ZMVN7aG.jpg

The Saturn V (spoken as "Saturn five") was an American human-rated expendable rocket used by NASA between 1966 and 1973.[6] The three-stage liquid-fueled launch vehicle was developed to support the Apolloprogram for human exploration of the Moon, and was later used to launch Skylab, the first American space station. The Saturn V was launched 13 times from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida with no loss of crew or payload. The Saturn V remains the tallest, heaviest, and most powerful rocket ever brought to operational status and still holds records for the heaviest payload launched and largest payload capacity to low Earth orbit(LEO) of 310,000 pounds (140,000 kg).[4][5] - Wikipedia 

DOWNLOAD

Ok, I will start this off saying Happy New Year! This is a rocket that I have been working on for quite a while now, and have finally completed. It is a fully functional super realistic model of the Saturn V rocket, and the Apollo Mission. The craft is actual sized, at 10m in diameter, and has over 1,100 parts. This rocket has been quite the experience to build as I seemed to encounter EVERY glitch in the game. It was most of the time a case of one step forward, two back, but somehow I got it into a working condition. From it I learned how fairings are the glitchyest ***************s in the world, that my new computer is way way way better than my old one, and that heat shields make great decals.

On to the flight plan, and it is luckily a simple one for you. Just fly it like any rocket, but keep RCS on during the ascent. I highly suggest that you do not turn while the first stage is firing, and also be prepared for low FPS, again over 1k parts.. Due to fairing bugs, i had to implement an explosive staging system, so just don't activate the engines until you see the fairing on the previous stage blow up. Toggle 0 for the antenna in orbit, and abort is for activating the abort tower (will come off on its own if not used)

Just to give you an idea of the scale of this thing, (if the pics were not enough), the first stage is powered by 35 Rhino engines, the second is powered by 10, and even the third requires two. The main large hull is a 3m fuel tank surrounded by 12 Mk3 space plane fuel tanks, and also the capsule is actually a 3m fairing around the 3 man capsule. Anyhow, I hope that you enjoy the rocket!

 

(sorry for the massive album, I was pic crazy, [just installed visual mods]}

Dangit, the forums still say this was posted in 2015, hmm.. I do wonder what time zone the forums are based on :P

Edited by Bubbadevlin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well.

Goddamn, that's a nice piece of work there. Reminds me of the Munbug, by Mulbin.

One minor thing- the LM was connected to the S-IVB stage until CSM docking, and then separated.

Speaking of the LM, it looks frigging amazing. the attention to detail here it off the charts. Give yourself a pat on the back, man- you've earned it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey man,

  So much to say after looking through the pics. I was surprised by the lander. It looks great, if a little heavy, and no rover? Given the size I would expect one. I know Apollo 11 didn't have one but you didn't specify which flight it was. Also given the HUGE part count I would expect more detail. No separating interstages? And why no pics of the separating payload bay? That is one of the 'moments' of flying a Saturn V. It is very important.

I was also surprised by the scale, it's massive which is awesome!

It is worth putting the Ullage and retro rockets in the correct place though, if you are making a replica, it really adds to the immersion.

 How many parts in the lander?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone!

And yea, Majorjim, everything in this replica was heavier than the actual rocket, as there was alot of weight in looks, and ksp fuels are really really dense. The lander is ~220 parts, and I probably could have made a rover, however the part count was already very high, and KSP was already doing very wonky things. For the separating payload bay, I just kinda forgot to take good pics :/, and I docked the LEM and CMS after decoupling the last stage, because of how the lander was attached. The lander's sub-assembly snap point is that top docking port, and i put it on the lower decoupler, then turned it around to face upward. This made the docking port seem covered in the eyes of the game, so it was impossible to dock until I got rid of the last stage. 

The thing about retro rockets is, you wouldn't see them really, as all the smoke from the SRBs that heat the fairing would obscure them all (darn KSP fairing bugs), and I also couldn't really do inter stage separation for the exact same reason, fairing bugs, or deal with even more insanely high part count with a custom fairing

I honestly didn't really think about Ullage rockets, and I bet I could add them in thinking about it now 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bubbadevlin said:

Thanks everyone!

And yea, Majorjim, everything in this replica was heavier than the actual rocket, as there was alot of weight in looks, and ksp fuels are really really dense. The lander is ~220 parts, and I probably could have made a rover, however the part count was already very high, and KSP was already doing very wonky things. For the separating payload bay, I just kinda forgot to take good pics :/, and I docked the LEM and CMS after decoupling the last stage, because of how the lander was attached. The lander's sub-assembly snap point is that top docking port, and i put it on the lower decoupler, then turned it around to face upward. This made the docking port seem covered in the eyes of the game, so it was impossible to dock until I got rid of the last stage. 

The thing about retro rockets is, you wouldn't see them really, as all the smoke from the SRBs that heat the fairing would obscure them all (darn KSP fairing bugs), and I also couldn't really do inter stage separation for the exact same reason, fairing bugs, or deal with even more insanely high part count with a custom fairing

I honestly didn't really think about Ullage rockets, and I bet I could add them in thinking about it now 

I agree, the fairings are H O R R I B L E. It's as if the makers wanted them to be as bad and restrictive as possible.. Anywhoo, great job on the lander man and I do not envy having to test fly a 1000 part rocket.. Kudos!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bubbadevlin said:

Thanks everyone!

And yea, Majorjim, everything in this replica was heavier than the actual rocket, as there was alot of weight in looks, and ksp fuels are really really dense. The lander is ~220 parts, and I probably could have made a rover, however the part count was already very high, and KSP was already doing very wonky things. For the separating payload bay, I just kinda forgot to take good pics :/, and I docked the LEM and CMS after decoupling the last stage, because of how the lander was attached. The lander's sub-assembly snap point is that top docking port, and i put it on the lower decoupler, then turned it around to face upward. This made the docking port seem covered in the eyes of the game, so it was impossible to dock until I got rid of the last stage. 

The thing about retro rockets is, you wouldn't see them really, as all the smoke from the SRBs that heat the fairing would obscure them all (darn KSP fairing bugs), and I also couldn't really do inter stage separation for the exact same reason, fairing bugs, or deal with even more insanely high part count with a custom fairing

I honestly didn't really think about Ullage rockets, and I bet I could add them in thinking about it now 

220 for the lander is actually quite good. That fairing saved a few parts I bet. It's annoying that those tanks are the only sensible way to reproduce the Mylar covering though.. I would like a smaller gold part.

 Why do you have to avoid pitch with the first stage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bubbadevlin said:

Oh, you really dont have to, I just suggest it because pitching is really hard with such a large rocket, and it may cause instability 

Riiight ok. I guess framerate issues too. How was it flying a full 'J class' mission?

Edited by Majorjim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well before when i had my old computer, it was complete ***** The first stage would take ~30 minutes to burn through, (with .5 FPS)  then in most testing, it would end up blowing up on staging :(

After I got my new computer, it wasn't too bad, taking like 5-10 minutes to burn the first stage, then after staging it was much better FPS. (like 5) Still no joy, but with my new computer it was doable. 

Then I ended up screwing up just about everything with my landing and even started to orbit the other way, luckily the lander was only moving about 100m/s, it it was overbuilt :P

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was looking at your LEM ascent separation wondering why you added some SRBs before the main engine fires. I am making an Apollo craft and I am testing the separation of the LEM ascent stage and it cooks the lower stage every time.. I think the way squad changed the engine heating at certain distances the heat is infinite..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bubbadevlin said:

Odd, I have those sepratrons in there for the exact reason that my engine was overheating the lower stage, and for me it doesn't overheat. If you notice though, the sepratrons are angled outward away from the lower stage

That's what I mean. I was thinking "why did he add SRBs?" Then after seeing my lander cook the lower stage I remembered that heat update and at that moment I knew why you had used SRBs. I saw a lot of people complaining about that. It kinda kills LEMs. I think using the offset mod I can just move some tanks out of the way.

Edited by Majorjim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah yea, I guess. I think it looks pretty cool using the septratrons, but yea, not as realistic. The problem with moving stuff out of the way is, you still have the lower stage engine under there. In fact, the center is mostly empty in my replica, as all the fuel is stored in the round -8 tanks 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sgt_flyer said:

you'll still have the lander's engine in the way though. (wonder if an heatshield could help here, if there was a bit of space between the lem's ascent stage and the lower stage.)

I mean on my build. Heatshield waaaay too big and heavy for my lander. The problem is the heat is infinite, it kills all parts that are close.

Edited by Majorjim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is very impressive. You really went all-out in terms of scale. I know better than most that a KSP stock Saturn V is a journey, not a destination! I look forward to seeing even more refinements to this over time. Maybe after 1.1 (or if I get a new PC) I'll be able to run this! 

This makes me want to revisit my own stock Saturn V.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bubbadevlin said:

Ah, thank you GusTurbo, as well as Motokid 

And no, the TWR isn't that low, the craft is just very unwieldy and hard to control with the first stage, go ahead and try if you want to! :P 

I may have asked this before but how tall is this SV?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

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...