Jump to content

Jcking

Members
  • Posts

    331
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

619 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

1,818 profile views
  1. From what I recall the only difference is the longer burn time that the OSA has, something that isn’t simulated in BDB and most kerbal mods.
  2. I would like you to know that this was seriously considered (but saner heads prevailed and MOLAB went forward instead until that died).
  3. The NAR MEM was an aerobraking/retropropulsion design with ballutes deployed at mach 3.5 and jettisoned at mach 1.5, at which point retropropulsion with a 140,000 lbf FLOX/CH4 aerospike begins bleeding off excess velocity until touchdown.
  4. What is called the ALSS lunar base is the SLA mini-base (which sadly the report isn't on the public internet).
  5. Funny thing is that the July 1961 baseline vehicle uses solid propellant motors for the circumulunar, lunar orbital and lunar landing versions (with an increasing amount of solid motors depending on the mission). There is a what I presume to be a contractor version (can't tell for sure as the document only refers to it as Design II) of Apollo that uses the conic capsule from July of 61 is all liquid storeable propellant, but with an unusual SM arrangement.
  6. Yeah, the basic idea was that you can burn atmospheric oxygen with fuel rich engine exhaust for extra thrust. This also allows you to reduce the amount of LOX on board the vehicle.
  7. There's roughly two different NOVAs, the early ones (which include your NASA NOVAs) were around as capable as C-8 (and the baseline nova was practically identical to C-8 with the exception of a two M-1 second stage), and the later ~1 million lbs to orbit NOVAs. For the latter, having the F-1, and M-1 modeled isn't as useful as one would think.
  8. Expansion Deflection, not bell. It's a type of altitude compensating nozzle. Rocketdyne worked on a couple, and Aerojet built and test fired one.
  9. A version of Voyager Mars. A orbiter and lander combination similar to Viking, but two are launched at a time by a Saturn V.
  10. Re: C-8. Below are MSFC critiques on the program as of June 23, 1962. "The schedule is shown is considered optimistic even with the assumptions listed. It is a success schedule in which nothing goes wrong, all technical judgements are correct, and there are no failures. The six (6) vehicle R&D program is extremely undesirable considering the jump in technology from Saturn C-1 to C-8. The decision required on July 1, 1962 to meet the schedule cannot be made without a major change in NASA policy and without a complete disruption of the Apollo program and the thousands of personnel now doing productive work towards the mission objective. A major redirection at this time would cause considerable delays in the schedule to bring C-8 to the same status that C-5 is today. Based on past experience at MSFC in implementing programs of this magnitude, it is estimated that the first C-8 flight could take place in May 1967. This allows for time to stop the presently approved C-5 program and to the define the C-8 program in sufficient detail that decisions can be made, facilities can be started and the contractors can be given sufficient information to start the stage development. Considering the technical uncertainties in the C-8 development, a 10 vehicle R&D program is almost mandatory although secondary missions could be flown starting on flight No. 6. Manned flights should not be considered prior to No. 11 in March 1969."
  11. Not any parts specifically for the SEIs Saturn derived HLLVs, but the parts are there for you to make one.
  12. Nothing is in a playable state at the time of this message, so just sit tight.
×
×
  • Create New...