Pappystein

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

When D-2, and many other proposals were being developed, Centaur had not flown yet. It was BELIEVED that the tank Pressure vessel would be strong enough to complete the boiloff cycle (Gas transfers back to liquid state due to the pressure gradient.) Embitterment due to cold of the then available metals was not considered... Adequately. Same can be said for the ability to retain pressure in a Vacuum (this is honestly the biggest part of the problem.) The Amount of pressure a tank can hold inside of it is ACTIVELY ASSISTED by the outside air-pressure... Air-pressure = 0 ATM, then you have a lower INTERNAL maximum pressure vs when the Air-pressure is 1ATM or whatever. I am dramatically oversimplifying it here but you can get the idea. Mostly D-2 was not picked because it wasn't a 3 man Conic capsule. The Hydrolox issue not being relevant to the decision until after Centaur first flight.

It works in stock but it uses LFO instead of LH2O for fuel. I wrote a patch for it (it is posted on like page 3 of the alternate apollo thread) but it is out of date and did not use either Cyotanks or BDB tanks correctly... and thus is not a great patch. If someone makes a patch for LH2O better than that please post it to the AlternateApollo forum.

Tanks in BDB have an inherent set insulation value. This is in the part configs. I have not played around with it and I don't know the effect of changing it... although I am tempted to use a MM copy to make Centaur C.... the Monocoque tanks would be heavier and moar insulation so.....

So, since the latest round of insanity "we want Saturn C-8" (which isn't a thing) I decided to deep dive the NTRS archive and I found somethings. In 1959-1960 the plan to go to the moon was Earth Orbit Rendezvous utilizing multiple Saturn (that is what we know as the C-1 S-I stage) with whatever upper stages they could fit on it to build a spaceship to go to the moon. It is here that the first problem with Saturn starts. You see the S-I stage we all know and love as Cluster's Last Stand WAS the Saturn Rocket at this juncture. Anything on top of it was SOMETHING ELSE, aka a PAYLOAD for Saturn. The Letter codes (A, B, C, and D) were utilized to study different "Payload stages" combinations to get X, Y or Z pounds of payload into LEO. the Saturn with A upper stages was the Ballistic missile derived (primarily) and included potentially a Baby Cluster above the I stage. the Saturn with B Upper Stages was 220" Diameter new built stages. Something that would lay the ground work for the C series next: the Saturn with C Upper stages was either 220", 240" or 260" in diameter (it changed several times) and was what was settled on based on the conceptual math of the A and B Saturn upper stage plans. the Saturn with C Upper stages of increased diameter (C-3) was not conceived at the point of this document, but C-3 was an outgrowth of the limitations the C-2 rocket had as pointed out in this document. the Saturn D upper stages would combine the C Upper stages with Nuclear propulsion. So at this juncture it isn't C-2N and C-3N but rather D-2 and D-3 for example. About this time NTRS article 19730064135 was penned. In it, a comparison of the then understood paths to the moon before 1970. Assembled Rocket in orbit based on Saturn + B or Saturn + C upper stages (choices had not been done at this time) Much more costly Direct Ascent Rocket based on the concepts of Saturn and Nova but actually NEITHER ONE. Direct Transfer Earth-Moon Rocket (what many of you call C-8) was not part of Saturn and was a "prove this won't work" conceptual math exercise. The Cost and Risk to assemble a Moon lander and return vehicle in space being lower than the cost and risk of a giant Direct Ascent rocket. Direct Ascent Rocket, died before Earth Orbital Rendezvous died. The above is a direct quote from the Article. Direct Ascent CAN NOT be used before the 1970s as it clearly states here. Remember at this time the only part of the rocket called Saturn is what we call the S-I Cluster stage today! Then Kennedy's speech and latter assassination would cancel EOR. EOR could not make the timeline of BEFORE 1970. Long live Lunar Orbital Rendezvous! Long live the Saturn C-5! Also NTRS article 19640058212 has some interesting "Buck Rogers" payloads for the future Saturn Rocket. Many of them were repeated in the 1973 archived document above as well. NOW here is where it gets fun and the waters get muddy. The MSFC version of Direct Transfer Earth-Moon AKA Direct Ascent Rocket was dusted off and polished up to look vaguely Saturn like for the SECOND Nova Program of 1963-1965. It however was NEVER SUBMITTED. Nova grew to obscene sizes and MSFC refocused on Saturn MLV in lieu of NOVA. As it is, and as called out in NTRS article 19660012934, most of the competing Nova Rockets were between 60ft and 80 ft in diameter. My favorite example essentially clusters 6 Saturn V first stages around a 7th central Saturn V first stage Like I said, Nova is crazy stupid, and that includes the baby MSFC one you all keep bemoaning.

So I created a pretty comprehensive QOL list. I am only posting the Saturn portion of the list right now. But I also have Agena and Titan parts that could use QOL adjustments. Some of these are new parts, some are changes to existing parts and the bulk of the work (even though it is only like 3 entries) is alternative paint. Some additional Notes: The S-V stage is not a direct copy paste Centaur. Rather the tank is a thicker walled Centaur that did not eject it's insulation upon reaching space. It kept it until S-V stage ignition. The tank was self supporting so Monocoque instead of Balloon (meaning it is heavier than Centaur D.1) and because of the higher pressure limits has a better boiloff profile. LR119 was never actually built, for sake of convenience and time it was quicker to re-design the 220" S-IV 4 engine stage to the 240" S-IV 6 engine stage we all know and love today RL10B-3, the S-I Engine plate changes and the Centaur C/E should all be B9PS changes with additional variants added to their respective parts.... Although it would be neat if the RL10B-3 was a re-use of the RL10A-3 model with a new texture (different colors) to represent some exotic new material... like Coloumbium? The Centaur one being the one that would require more work than the others. The Auto Jettison for the Insulation would have to either be disabled or re-worked for the Centaur C/E and a somewhat different level of insulation would need to be applied to simulate the improved boiloff characteristics of the higher pressure level capable Centaur tank. ****EDITED**** Centaur C is the Saturn Centaur up until NASA took over management of the Centaur program from Convair. AFTER NASA took over the Centaur designation system was altered and what was Centaur C became Centaur E. And when Lockheed Martin took over the Centaur systems back from NASA they changed the nomenclature again. The existing Centaur V should actually be D.5A per last NASA nomenclature for example

There are some old documents that do reference the C-8... But they are all well past the Saturn V Preliminary design. Prior to the LOR being chosen they were ABMA's NOVA concept with 8 F-1 engines in the first stage. One of MANY MANY MANY NOVA rockets. NOVA deserves it's own mod. It is not a Saturn derivative and honestly MOST of the NOVA rockets were impossible to build then and are still impossible to build today! It is the same reason NASA still likes segmented SRMs... Monolithic SRMs are just too hard to move arround at the cape (let alone GET to the cape!) I really REEAALLYY need to create a document and post it on my Github that states, NOVA deserves it's own mod. It is NOT in any way related to Saturn with the exception that SOME of the NOVA rockets were meant to interface with the Apollo lunar payload for stupid reasons. QUAD AJ-260s on a MLV Saturn WAS an actual proposal But it is as cursed as the fictional C-8 *see above*

This wouldn't be a bad idea for ANY of the BDB crewed capsules.

Boiloff is magic like on the best of days. Build a strong enough tank and you can prevent boiloff from causing losses in propellant volume. Provided you have a small enough volume for the gas to expand into. Because if you apply enough pressure to a Gas, you FORCE it to become a liquid. Now Centaur can't handle those pressures with it's balloon tanks but S-IVB SHOULD ***that is to say this is a guess on my part*** be able to. After all they were looking to use SLUSH hydrogen (a semi solid Hydrogen) for the S-IVC. There is a perfect point for every tank. Sometimes that point is at 0% however (IE the tank never reaches Equalibrium between Liquid and gas conversions.) But most tanks have a point of lowest losses I guess you could say. I feel, given the documents on the Venus and Mars flybys using trains of S-IVC stages, that the S-IVB/C has such a point and it is significant enough to preserve a % of LH2 in space. That all being said, There is no real standard that NASA or anyone else holds people too for boiloff. This means there is no consistent nomenclature/reporting for how long something takes to boiloff. Rather NASA sets the standard by saying we need x% remaining propellant after Y mission parameters. This means that we don't know the actual storage capability of a particular Tank beyond it's stated mission parameters. So since I feel the numbers in BDB Boiloff are too aggressive (based on Centaur D.1 stage flight profiles and out of normal performance of some of those stages) I turn the BDB Boiloff function down to 25% (instead of the Default 50%) This solves the above conundrum for me. Except the whole S-IVB had "Perfect Balsa" Insulation and the Equalibrium point. The point of all of this? We don't have a prefect boiloff system. HECK it doesn't even cover LOX Boiloff etc... But we have one, and with some self tweaking via the effectiveness slider we can fix SOME of the boiloff issues we face. I don't think KSP can handle a Real world Gas-Liquid-gas cycle like real boiloff deals with. So we have what we have. Pull request for deletion of My H-2 patch in-coming. Also I need to change the J-2T-400K from a separate part to a B9PS as I have found evidence that it wasn't significantly larger than the standard J-2T-250K engine.

H-2 is essentially a H-1 Rocket engine with a modified Combustion chamber and new turbopumps and bell that crank the thrust to the 250,000lbf thrust range. Was discontinued as the XIV turbopump (Going from memory and that is also my favorite mark of the Spitfire so I might be wrong there) was of limited reliability INITIALLY and would require about 2 years to make man rated. IE canceled by NASA because Moon Race was all that was important. But the RS-X (which seems to be J-2 sized) would be an awesome addition to the stable of BDB engines

If you are referring to the "white" areas above the bells in the engine bay those are all part of the Flame deflector system (the big plate between the engines on the S-II stage.) It is possible that there are temporary structures to maintain J-2 alignment in there as well. Things that would be removed just before S-II and S-IC stage integration. J-2s never had any Asbestos ablative insulation like the F-1s did. the White color you are seeing is likely due to this either A) being an early S-II, before they started leaving them zinc Chromate green only. or a trick of lighting because of the higher reflective index of the paint coating vs the surrounding (like all the "shadow" pictures from the moon that drive the conspiracy idiots nutz and thinking we faked the moon landing. Yeah, the HG3 files in extra are in fact creations I made and posted years ago... They should be removed from the Final Apollo release (IIRC they have already been removed from the EXTRAS branch along with my MLV and INT Tank extension patchs.) *opens github to check* Yes the only patches left are the J-2T-400K patch and the H-2 engine patch (that also may be depreceiated shortly depending on what Cobalt has or will decide on the subject of BDB native H-2 engine)

SO just a small post here today on the History of Saturn. Friday I received the long awaited Saturn C-2 Preliminary design document from MSFC. This document is now restored to NTRS server but only findable by searching subject "Saturn" and a Date range of 1959-1961 A few things historically here. 1) for the longest time it was believed that the Saturn C-2 used the same Juno V stage as Saturn C-1. Turns out it SORTA does. it is infact 65" shorter and intended to run between 600,000 and 650,000lbs of fuel and oxidizer. The fuel load is mission dependent. 2) the document, dated early 1960 has already replaced the S-III stage with the 4 engine S-II stage. This is contradictory to previous documents we have access to. but most of those were "2nd tier" documents. However interestingly at the time of this document's creation the S-III stage is listed as the 3rd stage for C-3! 3) we finally know Pratt and Whitney's designation for their un-built (well at-least un-flown) LR-119 meant for the S-IV and S-V stages. RL10B-3 (YES that is correct!) It appears that back in the 1960s P&W used the letter after the engine name to denote cycle. So the LR-119/RL10B-3 is a LR-115/RL-10A-3 with a different or at-least altered combustion cycle. We have already seen this in the amzing RL20 that Zorg has integrated into BDB. 4) S-V is NOT even a near copy of the Atlas Centaur but rather an Evolved Centaur. The Tank skin is thicker, has significantly more HTP peroxide and does not shed it's Insulation until RL10 ignition. I could not find how much thicker the S-V's tank skin was but it could be self supporting or a true monocoque structure that relies on no external forces (in this case internal air pressure) At the time this document was drawn up the S-V was still called Centaur C. This would change only once Lewis took control of Centaur away from Convair about a year and a half later. 5) one of the Moon plans just using C-2 rockets envisioned a C-2 with the S-II, S-IV stages surrounded by large drop tanks (similar to the AGENA SOT tanks) These tanks were the length of the S-IV and S-II stages combined and the entire rocket would take approximately 33 launches to assemble and refuel in orbit! But would have a payload capacity similar to Saturn V (10 ton return payload) 6) S-IV was to have insulation that was detachable as well at this juncture! For those interested in reading this. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19630045066/downloads/Saturn C-2 Phase I Preliminary Design Report_CLEAN.pdf?attachment=true