Pappystein

Doing so would totally break the parts because you are adding hundreds of TONS of mass.... not really an exageration there. Embrace Hydrolox, it make the game better

Yeah, it would look better with Saturn-Titan Derived 156" SRBs instead of the Shuttle Derived 148" ones. The gimbal collar would have a flat "inside" side to it and utilize a strong-back beam between the nose and tail sections... great place for attachment points don't cha know

getting into gross speculation here. E-1 is dead at the point H-2 enters the Fray. I would imagine that S-IB would get the H-2 engine eventually... along with improvements. Biggest one being a mono-hull first stage which would shorten the rocket, slightly increase the fuel load and most importantly dramatically improve the TWR. Alternatively the Stage could be closer to S-IB stage, get a lot more fuel and have a longer burn for the first stage... Honestly the H-2 being ruled out by H-1s is not the end of the world if you look at the F-1 +4 H-1 engine option. Sadly there is no real payload options with the technology involved to warrant the upgrade of Saturn beyond the S-IB. However there is a "solution" to that. It would require that Vietnam war be ended in 1968-1969 and the need for "satellite reconnaissance planes" like oh, I don't know, Dynasoar? be viable. This would also make Saturn a Viable Launcher for a MOLesk station/satellite.

as of right now it exists only as a Patch in the Pafftek (mine) Extras folder. Cobalt was toying around with a new model for one a while back and posted some new pictures of the old model. Up to him if he wants to finish it and include it for real. My Patch is nice but not amazing and will need a revision if Cobalt does not create his own H-2.

Good find! However the statement about H-2 could logically be taken two ways. 1) It is un-reliable. 2) As an interim rocket to the Saturn V the Saturn IB is good enough as is and does not need the extra 30 million spent on a better engine to make the S-IB even better. The linked document talks about the improvements being done to the H-1 to make it more reliable. Therefor they already have tested it... H-2 (XIV) was still an unknown and would require the same rigorous testing... + Kennedy Time Crunch = H-2 is Wasteful and not needed in my translation of all the documents. Either way, I think the H-2 being developed is an actually better departure point for an Alt History story for space than most of the others that have been out there. Don't get me wrong, there are many great Alt History space race stories out there. Some which are well covered by this mod. I am just thinking that a "Viable" "Usable" Saturn S-IB blk2 or whatever makes for an even better story. My 0.01 cents USD

What little we have on the H-2, 30million price tag and it's name and perspective thrust category leads me to go with Jcking and GoldForest. It may have been derived from the X-1 engine program (same as the H-1) But it was all new hardware. I believe I have seen that Turbopump mentioned in the few documents I have read on E-1 as well. So likely it is a homogenization of parts from the E-1 engine that were already tested with LR-79 / H-1 hardware and changes to the combustion chamber to withstand higher pressures. But that is 10000000000% Guess! Something to note, the final LR-79/H-1 heritage design, the RS-27 had thinner thrust chamber walls than the H-1. Meaning it is POSSIBLE that the H-1 was over engineered and could easily take a bigger turbopump etc. However the thicker walls could have easily also been due to improvements in metallurgy over the 25 years between H-1 and RS-27... IDK.

Dayum! This means another of my patches in the BDB Extras folder will soon bite the dust. Only wish the thrust ring was smaller (so it could fit cleanly in the Atlas Booster skirt (or is the Booster skirt getting a revision as well?? IDR at this point!) Seeing that thrust ring *MIGHT* have been due to me scaling up the engine via the SCALE function IDK. 8x H2 Engine Saturn IB Blk2 incoming I guess Oh and Atlas F' as well

Hokey Pete! I don't think that Ed Kyle has seen that report. SpaceLaunchReport.com in the Atlas Section lists the H-2 as likely a type-o! The same data card I posted about Centaur JR! Even better, it (the paper) was my NEXT paper to read from that Archive!

Yeah sorry I said that poorly. DARPA suggested the switch because THEY were uncertain what would happen with NASA budgets... and they had the funding needed to upgrade the LR79 into the H-1 engine available right then.

Yeah, Juno V was at best an "Expedient" rocket and not a "Optimized Design." DARPA had limited funds and lofty goals in 1958. Saturn S-IB is an "Optimized Expedient" rocket. And both suffer from not having the Original spec engines (4 or 5x E-1s). The S-IB is BARELY optimized. I mean it is a few thousand pounds lighter than S-I but it is still in-efficient. Juno V is a crash program from the "Missile gap." Short version, the only goal of Juno V what latter became the first stage of Saturn I and IB, was to crank out a stage capable of X pounds of payload to space. No thought to optimization and no thought to longer term. Hence all the concepts latter for mono-hull S-I stages etc... Much of what culminated in the Alt History described in ETS. Given the Lack of growth potential in the base H-1 engine.... even in it's ultimate form (RS-27,) it was not really the engine that Juno V was conceived for. As I covered a couple months ago, The only reason the E-1 was not developed is because of the uncertainty of NASA and the future budgets needed to complete it's development. With E-1 engines the Saturn I rocket is not a total pig. It is still an in-efficient rocket... but much more usable. The end result is a barely capable rocket, in some ways. While I still question some of the numbers associated with it, at best it is a pig... sometimes a good pig, sometimes good enough of a pig... but a pig none the less.

Well my document did say "interface." I could have misunderstood.

The S-IV stage is actually powered by the RL-10-A-3S (S denoting Saturn as in the computer hookups.) The S-IV was originally supposed to be the LR-119 which never made the light of day. A lot of people like to say the RL-10A-3 was the LR-119. No it is the production LR-115. If the RL-10A-3 was LR-119 then the S-IV stage would have stayed 220" diameter and only had 4 engines. The LR-119 was not a "classic" RL-10... but a derived RL-10. An all new combustion chamber and bell with a Higher pressure capability. Basically a RL-10B-2 with a tube wall bell and 20 years earlier.

Followup thought on Boil-off. 30 days in orbit is enough time that LOX Boil-off would be a concern. After all this is why the Vega was paired with the 6K stage from TRW. The Vega actually outperformed Agena B in all critical stages except on orbit fuel stability... because LOX boils off.

Cobalt has mostly answered the above question. The actual engine comes from Shuttle Agena documents. HOWEVER the performance comes from AiAA paper from 20 years latter that I think is a type o given the same Shuttle Agena document quotes a much higher thrust for the same ISP. The LR-81 was not intended for Agena 2000 (yeah I know I was really confused by that myself.) But the performance cited in the AIAA paper above ARE from Agena 2000 (which was being talked about in the same paper.) Did a bit more research after my post above. I am going to partially retract my statement from above. Re reading Joe Powel's excellent if abbreviated history of the Vega stage re-kindled a thought... one I just accused everyone else of missing... Time Dilation. It appears, and I am concluding without a full set of facts here, that there were TWO teams at Convair working on Centaur JR in the runup to the Atlas F stretch proposals. The timing of the Atlas F. With it's H-2 engines and Centaur JR is BEFORE the first centaur launch but around or after the cancellation of Vega. It seems Gamma is a quick and dirty "alternative" to the scaled down Centaur that Convair was wanting designed. The port you are looking for is Benjee10's C-100 port. IIRC the BDB team has sourced that port and it is in BDB already. But, if you are like me, you may want the original port that Benjee10 made (in-case he updates it or similar) https://github.com/benjee10/Benjee10_sharedAssets/archive/refs/heads/master.zip The neat thing about the C-100 vs the old CX-Aerospace APAS port that WAS in BDB, is that it is colorful and more forgiving than the old CX one. Also there is a "right side dot" on one side so you can tell the correct orientation needed to have a perfect dock everytime. Ignoring the key factors, Switching to SOFI would actually increase boil-off vs Perfect balsa. But you have the right of it Jcking. The biggest benefit of the S-IV stages is they are NOT Balloon tank stages. They are in fact rather well built pressure vessels. The factors of Boil-off: Thermal Boiling of the Liquid Hydrogen Lack of pressure containment to re-force Gaseous Hydrogen to re-liquify lack of structural strength forcing the out-gassing of the gaseous hydrogen An easy way to visualize Boil-off is your favorite carbonated beverage be it Pop, Seltzer or Soda water. (YES Faygo invented the bubbly drink we all love, they call it POP thus it is POP not Soda people! regardless of what Coke or Pepsi, or some states in the Union might say ) You shake it up and you watch it fizz and fizz in the sealed container.... If you wait a few moments most of the fizz, the gaseous Carbon Dioxide, is mostly re-absorbed into the liquid. This is because of the higher pressure created by the shaking. IF the top was open or loose when you did it, you get a jet of carbon Dioxide, along with some Carbonic acid and whatever other fun stuff was in the bottle. This is Boil-off as a countertop Science experiment. In the case of Saturn S-IV stages, the same thing would basically happen. But in the case of the fragile Centaur balloon tanks... You HAVE to vent the gaseous Hydrogen because you WILL explode. Think the Saturn IV stages as a fully sealed Bottle, and the Centaur a Bottle with the cap twisted 1/4th of the way off. Do the experiment enough, with the Centaur analog and you are going to have a Fizzy mess everywhere... Now onto the Specifics of the S-IVC. Improved insulation installation. I think it is a Hybrid of SOFI and Perfect Balsa but I didn't go far into details on that. SOFI on the LOX tank would make perfect sense for example. SOFI is something like 90% as effective as Perfect Balsa Slurry Slush Hydrogen... solid has to translate to liquid before it can boil off.... for the most part.... extra Hydrogen due to the semi-solid state of the Hydrogen (more can be lost to boiloff... a perfect burn would deplete LOX before Hydrogen in other words Extra strength designed into the fittings. Allows for greater pressures in the tanks before venting. Each of those four points dramatically improve on orbit stay time before Hydrogen loss is endemic. I would GUESS that the 30 day on orbit time is 30 days until the Hydrogen has depleted enough to not allow a full burn to LOX depletion. Oh and no Kidding, I can give you Hypergolics at the countertop... well more like sidewalk for science experiments... All OTC stuff But you will stain your Concrete purple so I don't suggest it.... Only involves to reagents... one for your aquarium and one for your scrapped knee

Minor correction here, Jcking has it mostly right... Gamma is a miniature Centaur so sometimes called Centaur JR. But it is NOT the stage Centaur JR (which would be closer to the HOSS than Centaur) I use the HOSS in game to represent CEntaur JR... and the Vega smaller forward dome tank with the Centaur Single Engine mount for Gamma.. NOTE Do not put a GCU on your Centaur Stage if you are going to do Centaur Gamma... It belongs on the Gamma stage now. Other than that publicity drawing there is no documented proof that Centaur-JR and Gamma were the same stage... However there IS proof that Centaur JR was to be a smaller diameter (8ft instead of 10) The data I am basing this off from is on the DTICs server AD842594 https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD0842594.pdf *realize the above statement in conjunction with the graphic from SpaceLaunchReports made me sound like I was Ed Kyle, I am not *

The Docking port and serial burn of the S-IVCs is actually for Mars, But it was also mentioned for Venus and Eros. As a way to provide a "more robust" experience for the astronauts. As of this time there are no public plans to make such a set of parts. But I hope they do come to be. Based on my reading, all the interconnects (for controlling the various stages) were wired to "shielded" and "un-shielded" portions of the docking ring. meaning the forks on the active port side (in the middle of the IU) were the "wires" for control connections. It would bring me back to the Tinker-Toy space ships that I built back in 2013 with just stock parts in KSP!

Douglas Saturn IV stage. A quick and dirty design history, including significant variants. Something that I have tried to make clear to my readers as I write these “vignettes” on Rocket design has not been well stated. So I am taking the opportunity to start by talking about History and the most significant failing the average non-historian reader suffers. Time dilation. No, in the physical sense, we are not time-traveling here, nor are we approaching the speed of light, the two places where most of you probably think Time Dilation exists. Instead, by looking ‘so far back,’ what you see as a few events that are hard to make sense of has happened over days, months, and years. A great example: The Titan Rocket. Titan started in 1955, was first launched in 1959, and completed service in 2005. The design and fabrication of the relatively simple Titan I took practically five years! Much of what you, the reader, see on the Titan Rocket is summarized in these bullet points: · Build a robust alternative to Atlas · Upgrade said robust alternative to storable fuels · Upgrade said storable rocket for Gemini program · Upgrade said rocket again for space launch as the Titan IIIA · Realize we need MOAR thrust, so add SRMs to Titan IIIA · Stop, change directions with a different SRM · Build space station manned spy satellite launched from Titan III · Realize you need even bigger SRMs for MOL · Realize a bigger core would make MOL more viable · MOL Canceled · Build newer versions of Titan III for future space launch of bigger things · Completely redesign Titan III into Titan IV · Completely redesign SRMs (SRMU vs. UA120x) · Cancel because Toxic Storable fuels are too expensive to replace, and “new things” are coming (regardless that it was a new rocket in 1996) When you look at those bullet points, you see a few decisions. But each of those decisions resulted from thousands of other choices leading up to each of them. So realize that what you are about to read is probably the most significant compression of time into a vignette I have yet done. Also, recognize that much is missing from the NASA published history “Stages to Saturn” by Blisten because of fears of spreading technical knowledge to the enemies of the United States. Juno V: Cluster’s revenge? The Saturn S-IVB, 200 and 500 versions: S-IVC To Eros, Mars, and Venus or Bust!: Modular Launch Vehicle (MLV) MS-IVB: It should be remembered that the Saturn MLV program was a “what can we do with minimal change to what we got” study. It was not a straight building block to an extensive and varied portfolio of rockets…. Although with limited additional investment and design choices, it COULD HAVE BEEN. Oh and here is a picture of the S-IVC docking:

Yeah, the REAL S-IVC was an in-line docking version of the S-IVB with several changes from the S-IVB for the Douglas version of the Venus, Mars and Eros flyby. I am currently working on an article for the S-IV family and their dev history. I won't be covering ETS's S-IVC other than to mention it in the document. I am just starting the MLV section of the document.

Those "MOD S-IVb" look more like the S-IVC docking ports That was the intended as designed form factor. Something the EXACT OPPOSITE of the svelt beauty of Atlas.

Currently it is JUST the STME that has been updated from LH2 to Methane. But more coming (proper SSME is next IIRC) Personally I can not wait for the LTBE (Linearaerospike Test Bed Engine.) LTBE's other name is Rocketdyne J-2L Most of the engines planed for Rocket Motor Menagerie are SSME adjacent.

huh, I seem to be missing that gold foil nesting decoupler (or I didn't see it. ALT-TAB) Doh, didn't see the note about the decoupler... Thanks!

I launch all these Parts on Titan V CH4 Rockets (thanks to BDB and Rocket Motor Menagerie) Can't stand how robits work in KSP be it IR or stock. And that eliminates shuttles for me. on big truss pieces I sometimes have a small Mono+GCU+RCS "cap" to go with the Transtage I am using as my positioning tug. So I literally have a baby "nose guidance" tug and the main tug behind the payload. Just before docking (I use Mechjeb to autopilot into position but hold off by 50m. Then I remove the cap and ease the truss on in. I have done 100% of this ISS in the manor described (including the Russian Segment parts) Yes that is the never flown UDM approaching the Russian segment in this shot. I have a blown out radiator that is in the middle of being fixed by the crew onboard (next resupply mission will carry enough repair parts to finish it!) Oh and yes that IS Skylab forming the core of the station under the trusses!

any suggestion on how to use the atmospheric probe. I can't attach it below the Pioneer... AND attach a SRM no matter how I try (using the parts tagged with Pioneer 10 and the Star 37)

something to remember... Solid rockets are a victim of how the fuel is made (what shape and what materials) The stage casing is not to blame. I am sure a much less violent and longer burning arrangement COULD have been made in the SR-118 casing you are using. *EDITED* of course treaty wise, the SR-118 is not allowed for civilian launches as making any part of the Peacekeeper that is a direct 1 to 1 copy is illegal since they were eliminated by treaty. The exception would be if say the SR-118 was used BEFORE the all up MX went into service for something non-military. hope that helps

Use more sledgehammer? yes it is also the artwork for BALLOS The picture I have is actually called BALLOS9.JPG I do not know if the og source I had got the name wrong or what but I caught the "bigger Apollo" use of the art right away and saw a lower quality of the same drawing in the report I cited.