Pappystein

****SSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!**** You know we are not supposed to advertise!

Err, those be the moon rocks that are still attached. quit picking up the moon? Joking aside, Ground and KSP parts has had a fun relationship. I am willing to bet the whole "Dock with the planet" to build your base is the cause of this.

This has me curious. As far as I know there would be only 2 variants. the origional 4 engine RL10 basket and the single engine J-2 basket... Are you thinking of others? ***BONK*** sorry forgot about the 2 engine LR87 mount

Yes thanks that was one of the documents I was looking for. There is an actual "Preliminary Design Review Saturn C-3" but I can't find it anywhere. I would prefer that document (Since this one references that... but if I have to go off of second tier sources.......) PS I found it myself LAST NIGHT and was going to post when I got home today... so you beat me too it At the time when these drawings were done (mid 1961) both the C-2 and the C-3 have separate bulkheads. it was only latter (1963?!) that NAA figured out the efficiency of the shared bulkhead and solved the issues of it. the C-2 PDR shows similar spacing between the LOX and LH2 tanks. Oh and for what it is worth. S-V (that is Saturn-Centaur) and S-IV for C-1, C-2 and C-3 at this juncture were all planned with jettosnable insulation and in every case the insulation would jettison ONLY on stage ignition. Saturn-Centaur stage is not a Centaur-D and is NOT a Balloon tank, the skin is 3 to 5x thicker than Centaur D's.

Didn't realize the S-II-260 engine mount made it in the game! (S-II-260 is for the C-2 rocket!) That means C-2 time is approaching.... Excitement intensifies!

I am kinda surprised to see no one fly the smaller of these on the S-IV yet.....

Please see my previous line Also Thanks for the Agena Parts. That partially closes one of my Github issues/requests for the Agena.

In the same boat... have we reached the end of Superlatives???

I don't think you could get any closer to the Original without having a NEST team visit you!

This seriously turned out better than I thought it would... and I watched most of the stream and thought it looked amazing when I had to leave... W! O! W! On the other hand.... Be the Fargo! PUSH THE BUTTON! from the show famously miss-called "Urethra !" while filming a scene!

The Proposed Test and early Launch rocket was the Saturn D-2... Yes, a C-2 with a new 3rd stage instead of S-IV. It is in the big C-2 preliminary design doc I linked in SourceDocs. After cancellation of the C-2, the C-3 was chosen to be used, it would have been designated D-3 but someone, in speaking to congress was instructed to not to make it sound like a new rocket... so re-cast as C-3N. Per ABMA the Nuclear saturns were all D series derivatives of the C-Series. Per NASA HQ and politics, they were C-2N, C-3N, C-4N and C-5N. The C-2 doc has a preliminary sketch of both a test stage and a 260" Tug stage... the Tug Stage is more of a block diagram than a good sketch however.

Actually I found where the Citations on Astronautix are... At the TOP of every "family" of Rockets for example: http://www.astronautix.com/8/8587.html But as you can see by this Citation... Astronautix is Citing itself via Wikipedia's article being based almost completely off of Astronautix (literally almost word for word) Ok, does this mean the Saturn D series might be in the Offering? EG: 19630045289 SATURN D /NUCLEAR ROCKET UPPER STAGE/ DESIGN STUDIES /U/ FINAL REPORT

And Tail end drag but that brings about stability.... So....

So I know I have been silent on the "historical articles" side of things lately. There is a reason. My next document is well beyond the scope of the currently planed features for the Saturn Update. It will be coming shortly after the release of the Saturn Update. I will tell you that I will be covering the Saturn C-2 in Depth, and skimming along C-3 (sadly C-3 has too many conflicting source documents... C-2 has really ONE source document making it much easier.) If anyone has a link to an Actual Marshal Space Flight Center / AMBA Preliminary design report for the C-3 I would be much obliged Please do not post or PM links to either en.wikipedia.org or Astronautix.com In this case they are quoting each other as sources making them BOTH as trustworthy as a scorpion on your back while you swim across the lake.

Yep, I just wanted to take the Satire/comedy a bit further Since we now have proof of where WayUglyOverhype comes from *for those not in the know* And yes, that will be what I call that Rocket from now on. What many people call "C-8" was just a "comparative" study to show what would happen if we went for a Direct Ascent Moon landing vs smaller rockets and EOR (latter LOR) mission profiles. The exact profile of what people call C-8 is in the C-2 Initial Design documents. It clearly states that it (Direct Ascent) is over-expensive, over-large and not able to meet any of the needs to get to space as laid out by either the Eisenhower and latter Kennedy Administrations.... EG no Moon before 72 at the earliest! *Ok stepping off the soapbox cause you and I are on the same page Staticalliam7 * Interesting that you didn't use the S-IV instead of or in conjunction with the Centaur. Neat set of mission pictures

And the fact that it ISN'T a SATURN just kills doesn't it

It is not in the Dev Version yet. I am guessing here but by looking at it the inter-stage has zero details on it currently and that is likely why it isn't in game already.

All the Gemini Derived craft have a solid nose. The Docking nose cone carries Electrical power and electrical command connections only.. There is ZERO room for anything more in that nose cone. As has been previously stated, the nose RCS would prevent anything or anybody bigger than an electron, going from the nose cone to the cockpit area. Also the Cockpit does not have room for a person to move "up" into the nose even if there was room in the nose. And contrary to some KSP effects and peoples opinion, BigG is not an entirely new capsule designed to allow people to use said docking nose cone. Please note I do not call it a docking PORT, as a docking port implies a person can fit through it. Um, those are some very old parts there. Are they even in the mod anymore (the old Blue Gemini SM was depreciated a long time ago IIRC)??? Decided not to use the Gemini Ferry RCS?

Are the GEM-63s not in the BDB Adjacent Vulcan mod? It has been a while since I have looked at those files so I honestly don't know

I know Zorg has already covered much of this, including the same graphic I used in my Origional post on 11/8/2021. J-2X WAS the design and Development program to Improve the J-2 Engine for Saturn. the Results are, in tree form: J-2 J-2S *THIS is the original J-2X! 2nd J-2X family J-2L (aka Linear Test-bed Engine and a member of the 2nd J-2X family), J-2T (Aka Torroidal Aerospike Engine and the last member of the J-2X family) Then Much latter, the 2nd J-2X family would be altered SLIGHTLY to become the XRS-2200 for the X-30/X-33 Program. The 2nd J-2X family was essentially the Original J-2X (aka the now named J-2S) with new bell construction techniques to provide for a Higher ISP efficiency. Zorg's image shows; the Aerobell. Where a Flexible material bell would be "extruded" (more accurate than saying extended) while in flight. The Extending bell. In this case it would have been a ten segment bell extension. Much like the 1, 2 and 3 piece extensions we have today... but more complicated and fragile. and the Air-mat. Air-Mat utilized Turbopump Exhaust to inflate a flexible mesh bell. THAT is what is in BDB today.

Oy! how did I miss this! I was even home and online most of the day! DOH! Vacation weekend wasted I know it is low priority now but are we going to see the Big Cylinder SM for Big G as well? Currently you have the Low Cost Cylinder SM in game. (I might have the name "Low cost" applied to the wrong one)

Actually Length switches for CREWED locations I believe are impossible... it is a limitation of how the game engine works and B9PS can not work around it. The Dev Team, including Blowfish the creator of B9PS would be better to comment but I thought I would tag this now The issue being you can not add or subtract crew spots with B9PS

Also should one of those explode it would result in the instant loss of one or more J-2 engines on the S-II stage... if you don't need it... and it adds mass or Risk (or both) Get rid of it!

Don't knock TKS like that! I mean Gemini B was smart. It wasn't centered! Impressive start. Curious why the S-IC to S-II interstage was not dropped as it normally was. The extra Seperation motors on it might have mostly ofset that loss (should have only had 2 or 4 by the time of Skylab, looks like you had 8

As I understand it, the writing was on the wall on the subject of Hydrolox as a storable propellant even in 1961.... *IT APPEARS* that Convair let their collective Ego get ahead of science and to the detriment of Centaur. After all that WAS the reason NASA took over Centaur from Convair Control after the first flight in 1963. It is also the reason most people Believe Centaur C was meant to be a test bird. NASA re-named all the test vehicles, not liking whatever scheme, if any, Convair was using for naming their test articles. Proof that Hydrolox was discounted can be found in 20100027319 on the NTRS.NASA.GOV website. but to summarize: Hydrolox was chosen as a BACKUP proposal by ONE contractor before 1962 and that was the AJ10-133 powered D-2 Apollo from GE. By 1962 I believe GE's main proposal was a Connic 3 person CM with a 4 AJ10 SM (similar to the AJ10-118 from the early delta and able stars) AJ10 in hypergolic form was on every other proposal by 1962. AKA AJ10 was the only engine of choice