DaveyJ576

I agree on the shock attenuation of the pistons, but to get the maximum effect from this wouldn't the CM have to land on an even keel? Under the current descent configuration, the bulk of the initial landing shock would be borne by the struts on the side opposite from the hatch, possibly overloading them. But if the chute attachment was altered to enable an even keel landing, all of the struts would hit the ground at the same time and thus would share the initial impact forces. They could be made slightly lighter this way, and weight is everything on a spacecraft. All of this of course is predicated on the CM touching down on flat, level land.

There were also some dry weight reductions as well. Removal of unused tankage and plumbing, along with a reduction in consumables for the shorter missions being the main factors. Is there any way to reflect this? It may avoid reducing fuel amounts to unrealistic levels.

Hey! Great work and thanks!

I don't really have the background to interpret those charts properly, but to my layman's eye I would say yes.

I found it’s behavior to be markedly different from other mods, and not necessarily in a bad way, now that I think about it. BDB tends to have a very sudden and super rapid deceleration, nearly instantaneous. I actually think the deceleration curve in this mod is closer to reality, but perhaps a bit too slow. Is there a happy medium? Just the other day I was running some on-the-pad abort tests and was a bit worried that the chute wasn’t going to slow the descent module quickly enough from the relatively low altitude. I ended up touching down on land at about 12 m/s (and still decelerating) which proved to be survivable. A couple of observations on the chutes: 1. I think there should be at least one drogue. It seems unrealistic to not have one, given the techniques perfected on Mercury and Gemini. 2. Given the three person crew and the fact that you would be returning lunar samples and such, wouldn’t it be more realistic to have at least two chutes? Redundancy alone would dictate this. 3. Under the current setup, the DM descends on an even keel, which would not happen given the offset position of the chute. 4. In the current setup the chute appears to be too small (see #2 above). 5. From an artistic rendering standpoint, the chute needs some TLC improvements. None of this should be taken as a dig against @mcdouble. He has done some fine work here and this is one of my favorite mods.

Be forewarned that while an excellent piece of work, it lacks a BDB level of refinement. For instance, the CM heat shield isn’t strong enough to survive a reentry from the moon in KSRSS. I had to plus it up in the config file. My favorite part of the mod is the 1962 “Bug” LEM. It flies well but is pretty heavy, which is actually historically accurate. If you use a BDB passive docking port on top it works well with the BDB CSM.

@CobaltWolf, @Invaderchaos, and the dev team, Some further QoL items to consider: 1. The Block I CSM had a much smaller umbilical connector between the CM and SM. It was also placed almost 180 deg. opposite from the Block II version. See this pic: Would you have to add a new part, or can this be done via a B9PS? 2. I have it on reliable authority (Ed Kyle on the nasaspaceflight.com L2 forums) that Saturn I flights SA-8, 9, & 10 flew with a new, lightweight IU. It was unpressurized and weighed 2,677 lbs vs. 5,382 lbs on the original version. It was also two feet shorter. Is it possible to get a B9PS for this? There is a picture on their forums, but since it is on their paid L2 level I don't think I can repost it. Essentially it looks a lot like the S-IVB version. Yes, you can scale down your existing S-IVB IU, or scale up the Titan LDC IU, but the weight and size is off a bit. 3. According to this source (OMSF document Recommended Changes in the Use of Space Vehicles in the Apollo Test Program, October 29th, 1963), the four manned flights of the Saturn I that had been on the schedule for 1965/66 were to use a full up Apollo CSM, but with a minimum amount of fuel. By limiting the mission duration to three days (and thus keeping CM onboard consumables to that amount) the CSM could be loaded with 1,300 lbs of propellent and the Saturn I could still lift it to a workable orbit. This contradicts my earlier assumption that the Saturn I would have only been able to lift a "Mercury style" CM, with just a few additional lbs of monoprop, some extra batteries, and some solid retro motors attached to the heatshield. So, with all this said, is it possible to get a B9PS added to the CM and SM to drop the fuel and monoprop to these amounts? Essentially you could call the new config "Orbital 1" while the current orbital config for the SM could be called "Orbital 2", or some such thing. I was successful in adjusting down the propellent amounts in the CM and SM so that a Saturn I will lift it to a 100 km orbit, but it would be handier to have a part switch for it. 4. Very nitpicky here... the same L2 source (Ed Kyle) states that mission SA-201, the first Saturn IB launch, was the first to have the Boost Protective Cover in place over the CM. On the Saturn I and Little Joe 2 flights that had a CM boilerplate, the LES tower was attached directly to the CM. Can this be incorporated somehow? I think it would be a safe assumption that if manned flights had occurred on a Saturn I the BPC would have been in place. Can the BPC portion of the LES be removed via a B9PS? Thanks again for everything. I really appreciate how much detail you provide in this mod. Very immersive for this space nut!

The last time I looked into it there wasn’t a consensus on how to fix it.

I believe it is related to the mod Conformal Decals. I get the same effect. Next time I fly a Mercury mission I will try removing the decals.

Three more QoL items to consider: 1. I have it on reliable authority (Ed Kyle on the nasaspaceflight.com L2 forums) that on Saturn I flights SA-8, 9, & 10 they flew a new, lightweight IU. It was unpressurized and weighed 2,677 lbs vs. 5,382 lbs on the original version. It was also two feet shorter. Is it possible to get a B9PS for this? There is a picture on their forums, but since it is on their paid L2 level I don't think I can repost it. Essentially it looks a lot like the S-IVB version. 2. According to this source (OMSF document Recommended Changes in the Use of Space Vehicles in the Apollo Test Program, October 29th, 1963), the four manned flights of the Saturn I that had been on the schedule for 1965/66 were to use a full up Apollo CSM, but with a minimum amount of fuel. By limiting the mission duration to three days (and thus keeping CM onboard consumables to that amount) the CSM could be loaded with 1,300 lbs of propellent and the Saturn I could still lift it to a workable orbit. This contradicts my earlier assumption that the Saturn I would have only been able to lift a "Mercury style" CM, with just a few additional lbs of monoprop, some extra batteries, and some solid retro motors attached to the heatshield. So, with all this said, is it possible to get a B9PS added to the CM and SM to drop the fuel and monoprop to these amounts? Essentially you could call the new config "Orbital 1" while the current orbital config for the SM could be called "Orbital 2", or some such thing. 3. Very nitpicky here... the same L2 source (Ed Kyle) states that mission SA-201, the first Saturn IB launch, was the first to have the Boost Protective Cover in place over the CM. On the Saturn I flights that had a CM boilerplate, the LES tower was attached directly to the CM. Although he didn't state it directly, I get the impression that the LES tower was jettisoned from the boilerplate via frangible bolts. Can this be incorporated somehow? I think it would be a safe assumption that if manned flights had occurred on a Saturn I the BPC would have been in place. Thanks again for everything! I have a weird soft spot for the Saturn I and I really appreciate all of the refinements of late.

@CobaltWolfand the dev team, My requests for QoL improvements: Easy? 1. Apollo 7 style S-IVB rendezvous target 2. All white textures for the SM, IU, and S-IB stage to match historical flights 3. Three man variant for LM Taxi 4. Refinement of free flying LM/ATM for wetlab use. Specifically adding a node to the bottom (top?) of the ATM so it will attach to SLA. Harder? 1. LM Shelter and LM Truck Hardest? 1. Adoption of the Alternate Apollo mod. An excellent piece of work by @mcdouble, but it seems to be dormant and would really benefit from some TLC and refinement. It would neatly dovetail with BDB. I especially like the 1962 LEM. 2. Additional models of the LEM to mirror the evolution of the design., i.e. the 1962, 1964, and 1965 models. Thanks again for everything that you do. Outstanding work on the Apollo/Saturn revamp!

Nice! The absence of this fairing/nosecone was a minor nitpicky thing, but I am glad you corrected it. Thank you!

Thanks for posting this, but I have a question before I implement it: does this apply to the LaunchSites.cfg file for KSCSwitcher or KSRSS? Both mods have a file of this name. Thank you!

That works! Also, you can try flipping the S-II thrust block upside down, then Tweakscale it to fit the top of the Agena. Makes a great dispenser! You have to move the Poppies inboard a little to get them to fit inside the fairing.

I am a fan of the three engine version of the INT-20. It cuts back on some of those dodgy acceleration issues while still maintaining a LEO payload considerably superior to the Saturn IB.

Thanks. It is a beautiful model and I am looking forward to flying it. BTW, I solved the issue with attaching the AAP LM/Telescope Mount to the SLA. I cheated by downloading a nifty little mod called Nodehelper. Using it I simply added a node to the center bottom of the telescope stack and voila! It worked. Because of the length of the stack I had to push it down quite a ways to get the LM ascent stage portion to fit inside the SLA panels. This left most of the telescope portion sticking out of the bottom of the SLA and below the IU, interfering with the top of the S-IVB. I added a short adaptor tube section (Tweakscaled) between the SLA and the IU. The added length was perfect. The Saturn IB lifted it to a 115 km orbit with just a smidge of fuel to spare.

Has anyone tried to launch a Wet Workshop using the Saturn IB? I am having no luck at all in KSRSS. Workshop is built to the specs put out by Friznit. I have tried every reasonable combination of Saturn IB engines, all of the H-1 variants up to the H-2FT, and even tried a 1st stage stretch. For the workshop I have tried three different variants of the J-2. I have even tried to change out the SAF fairing for the buildable one. I reduced the exterior experiments to zero and reduced docking ports to just three. Both stages have full fuel. TWR on the 1st stage with eight H-2FT is 1.77, but TWR for 2nd stage is only .57, even with the J-2A-2 Using MechJeb PVG and a periapsis of between 105 and 115 km. Inclination between 30 and 40. Pitch starts at 90 m/s. Staging is occuring between 18k and 21k, and quite often it tumbles once before regaining the proper flight path. The stack struggles to get to 105 km apoapsis but runs out of fuel long before the periapsis gets above the ground. MechJeb is holding a high angle of attack for the whole ascent because it isn't getting to the desired target apoapsis, and therefore the speed over ground necessary to lift the periapsis to an orbital point never develops. Am I missing something? Or is something borked?

…and that is what was screwing me up. The fact that the atmosphere was still at a “realistic” altitude was causing me to doubt my figures. The genesis of this whole thing was the performance of the BDB Saturn IB on my KSRSS Earth. It seemed to be drastically underpowered as it was barely able to lift a half fueled CSM to 115km, when in real life it was capable of 400 km or more. The BDB dev team are pretty smart cookies so I couldn’t believe they gooned it up. You end up threading a needle in getting it high enough to keep it in orbit but not too high to run it out of gas. Its fairly low TWR doesn’t help either. Scaling is an interesting and sometimes confusing part of KSRSS and KSP in general. I just wanted to confirm in my mind that the performance was realistic.

I am normally a pretty intelligent guy, but I have to ask a potentially dumb question in order to understand something that I struggle a bit with... scaling. I am running KSRSS at x2.5. Is it correct to say that an orbit of 120 km with this mod at these settings is the equivalent of a 480 km orbit on a full size, real life Earth? The OP states that x2.5 is four times smaller than real life so it seems correct to my numbers addled brain that you would simply multiply your orbital parameters by four in order to get the real life equivalent. I am fully willing to admit that I gooned that up. Please correct me if I am wrong! Thank you.

For that point I was referring to the Apollo Telescope Mount. With the telescope on the bottom in this config, there is no node to attach the SLA to.

So, I have been working the Saturn revamp branch, experimenting with some Apollo Applications Project (AAP) concepts. The first part is related to mission AAP-1A, which was the first scheduled mission for AAP, to have taken place some time in 1969. It obviously never flew. The docked experiment carrier is a kitbash of this official concept: It was essentially a framework to which various cameras and sensors were attached, and it had a conical pressurized section in the center that served as a control station for the experiments. My kitbash is a little smaller than the real one would have been. It is a combination of a Mercury capsule and Coatl's Surveyor bus. I then slapped on a variety of experiments. Not an accurate recreation by any means, but close enough for government work. I am now working on the Wet Workshop. Below is my recreation of the ATM for the AAP program. Does anyone have an idea of how to attach this to the SLA? Without a node on the bottom you have to do a lot of adjustments. The existing framework options that @CobaltWolfadded helps, but there is still no way of attaching it to the SLA.

As I recall, the dev team has ZERO interest in doing that. After tinkering with my version, I can’t blame them!

I have a good design, it uses a combination of DLC and mod parts. It is a reasonably close approximation to the historical LRV. the problem is that it is too big for the BDB LM, even when folded. I am working on trying to Tweakscale it down, but I am running into some hinkiness with that while trying to attach the folding rover wheels. The other issue is developing a useable descent stage deployment mechanism. The #1 issue is that the scale chosen by the BDB dev team does not match the scale of the stock and DLC parts. Neither party is wrong here, both had justifiable reasons for doing so. But it does make kitbashing a historical-themed LRV for BDB use a bit more difficult. I may end up landing it separately.

Excellent point, and one I hadn’t thought of. Having worked for the federal government most of my life I can tell you for sure that money talks. This point alone may have pushed NASA into building more Saturn IBs. I am actually not a I/IB hater. I think it is a cool looking rocket. The clustered tanks give it that “Space Age” aesthetic that is sadly lacking in today’s rockets. Witness my earlier post with the Gemini Saturn stack!

I have seen those statements numerous times in NASA documents. They give weight to Von Braun’s belief that the I/IB was an engineering compromise. A complete redesign would have given you a mono-tank vehicle very similar to what the creators of ETS came up with. Most of the studies that advocated Saturn IB variants were efforts by Chrysler to convince NASA to keep the S-IB production line open, which is an obvious benefit to the company, but not necessarily a benefit to the program as a whole.