birdog357

Not if you stick it on top where a spacecraft belongs. That's my entire point, replace the S-4B with the orbiter, lock stock and barrel.

But, why? The S-IC and S-II can almost put the entire orbiter into orbit without needing the SSMEs at all. It's only 3 tons heavier than Skylab was. If you strip the SSMEs out and all of their support hardware you end up with a spacecraft that is 6-7 tons lighter than Skylab. Reduce the mount of wing a bit because the spacecraft is now lighter(and it get's lighter yet) and you start to get a useful payload again.

Yeah, like the fact that Columbia only had a few hundred m/s worth of delta v total.

Are we just gonna gloss over space shuttles to the moon? Never seen it, but have read synopsis. Pretty sure I recall they took Columbia, the heaviest of the birds, to the moon?

I just noticed this, you say you're trying to launch a non J2 Saturn IB? That would be a Saturn I and should have an S-IV which is smaller and has a sextet of RL-10s. Unless I'm misunderstanding you.

I think I figured out the problem. The C-3 I was looking at was a 2 million lb thrust class booster with all the stages above the first at S-IV(not B) diameter and hydrolox fueled. You have 2nd and 3rd stages at base diameter. You've got a 3 million pound thrust first stage with a 4.2 million pound stack.

@Pappystein had a breakthrough on the S-4 saga. On page 119 of Stages to Saturn, while discussing F-1 development: "In general, the configuration of the engine package followed the pattern of the Atlas sustainer engine(the S-4), Rocketdyne's first large liquid-propellant gimbaled engine with the turbopump mounted directly on the thrust chamber." The S-4 IS the LR-105.

I submit, that the ETS description and art, are in error from a technical standpoint. Edit: Welcome to page 905 Replace the center cluster of H-1 with an F-1. I'm reading Stages to Saturn and this is mentioned on page 48. It says that this is a possible configuration in lieu of uprated H-1s. @Pappystein @CobaltWolf This might be something to look at as a part switch.

I realize it's not APAS, I was thinking it should have the petals like APAS because it's a docking port, not a berthing port. Since two spacecraft can dock without outside support, unlike CBM.

Shouldn't there be 3 petals like the real APAS? You can't dock active to active without the hatches being clocked 45 degrees to each other.

I thought the whole point of jettisoning the interstage was heat buildup? Why would they have bolted one on when used as a first stage?

Why not put the spacecraft on top of the stack where God and Heinlein intended it?

I've been thinking, you say that the S-4 developed into the LR-105 right? The Altas was entering service in 61, that means it's engine was developed before that and any paper engine it was evolved from would have been even earlier.

It only lists Titan as built. Keep in mind this is only a catalog of in-service equipment or equipment that is ordered and will soon be in-service. After I have scanned all pertinent info and returned it, I'll request the 63-64 edition. We might find the info there. Could you go back to your original source and see if they have anymore to add? The index does show a reference to the S-3D on page 517 of the 61-62 edition.

Accidental double.

There is Titan stuff. I'll look into that. The cite may be the 63-64 edition. I can try to get ahold of that one next.

There is no mention of the S-4 in this edition. This is the 64-65 edition. It does have both the MA-2 (LR105-NA-3, LR89-NA-3, LR101 package) and MA-3(LR105-NA-5 etc) there's a notational MA-5 which is the standard Atlas SLV version of the MA-2 package. I can get some scans possibly tomorrow or later in the week. @Pappystein

You got it. It was the Rocketdyne S-4 you were inquiring about wasn't it?

@Pappystein just got home from the library. Guess what followed me home....

I have 8 gb of ram. My pc is over 10 years old and wasn't bleeding edge when I built it.

More parts. I'm gonna need a bigger computer...

What purpose does the separate nose cones serve on the front of the outboard engines?

IIRC, for one of the proposals, the S-IVB was used to kick the whole stack to an extreme elliptical (Lunar distance at AP) orbit, then transposition, purging, checkout and the SPS was used to give the final kick at PE to eject. That way they had an abort option in the first week. Funny you bring that point up. On the same mission, they reduced the S-IC retros. They discovered that the stages didn't separate as far as expected and concluded that if just one of the remaining retros failed, they could have a collision, so they reinstalled all the retros.

I was just looking at that the other day. The fairings had a wider angle on them(22 degrees vs the original 15) and the 4 outer engines were farther apart(420" vs 396" center to center) to fit the extra center engine and those were on 154" centers. https://drive.google.com/file/d/11LQDF5lF8ZvM4yuXpqyn7M6yg1KoyvED/view?usp=sharing Page 22 of the document/page 34 of the PDF file

@Pappystein I just walked out of the library. I FINALLY have the book on order. It'll be here in a couple weeks.