Pappystein

I am not certain about the Hydrolox engines for the ESM (Eros Service Module) but everything else can be well built with existing Venus Flyby. Later on the Eros and Venus missions were merged and were to use the same launch hardware and differ only in the experiments to be carried. Also I should add, Douglas studied a way to dock Saturn S-IVB or MS-IVB S-IVC (NASA) end to end to create a boost train. The Venus/Eros flyby vehicles would launch and convert the wetlab while in orbit to dry lab. Then a second Saturn (potentially a Saturn S-ID but more likely a Saturn II INT-18) Would launch with a Dock equipped S-IVB upper stage that would expend nearly zero propellant to dock with the Wetlab's engine INSIDE the docking assembly... And then this new second S-IVB stage would boost the Wetlab to it's Eros or Venus flyby destination. Potentially they calculated they could use upto FOUR S-IVBs in a row to boost a manned mission out of LEO

"Big Apollo" is not the official name it was covered under. That is the four man Eros Command Module (ECM.) And while the links below are for the 1966 proposal. This wasn't the final iteration of the design but rather the easiest to find data for. https://www.wired.com/2012/05/manned-asteroid-flyby-mission-1966/ https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3070&context=space-congress-proceedings Most of the "Big Apollo" references are actually McDonnell Astronautics references to a "Bigger Apollo type" that was shortened to Big Apollo. Most of the drawings of "Big Apollo" actually show a Gemini derived windows because of this! These "Bigger Apollo" were used to compare and contrast with the Big Gemini to show why Big Gemini was the better long term investment for NASA. EG McDonnell report F873 dated 10/31/1967 This is the "Bigger Apollo" from the McDonnell report above: Note there is no nose Probe. Also the Gemini style roundy/drooping eye windows... and the Ring and Fork aft docking with no propulsion. Like Big Gemini this would have only had RCS for propulsion. And since this is a *McDonnell Astronautics* design, it is hardly representative of what a North American Aviation "Big Apollo" would look like!

Just found some Saturn information from Ed Kyle on NASASpaceFlight quoting his post from earlier today (unrelated to me being there just lucked into it!) Hope that is helpful

Been a while since I have posted some screen Tax here. Started another "Alternative" ISS with HABTECH. This is a Skylab B derived core. Hope you like All in all I am happy with how this station is going. the new BDB CADS ports are a little bigger than the CBM ports of Habtech but give the little extra space (they are thicker) that I need to pull off some parts. I will end with a picture of a failed launch.... My Habitation section was launched to LKO orbit... but could never attain station keeping with the space station ( a bug in COM or RCS I believe.) It tumbled every time I tried to do a rendezvous burn. Again on a Saturn II INT-18: for the discerning eye. YEs the tug is a stretched with CRE tanks, Vega The 1960s US one, not the upstart SRM one Kidding about the "Upstart" comment. Frustrating how I can type "1960 NASA VEGA" in quotes in a search engine and get lots of links about the 2000s ESA one

Most demanding would be the all Water S-IV and The Apollo Boilerplate from the Water hauling missions I think. However I *DO* think a lot of sources quote S-I mass for the S-IB. Maybe, if I get them unlocked, my FOIA request will have better data. I did receive notification that the request was received yesterday!

You have now found THE major problem with Astronautix. It is basically a one man wiki and it only accurately covers a small percentage of the data out there. Astronautix is a great place to get names of things that DID fly or COULD have flown. But then you have to go to real sources to get better information as it rife with incorrect information, be it from typos or outright fabrications. sources like https://discover.dtic.mil/ https://ntrs.nasa.gov/ for the US stuff.

I hate when my rockets/stages tip over.. ESP after I have sucessfully landed them! They tend to go all sploodie

I don't think the low thrust rating (what the AJ-260s are currently equipped with) would have enough thrust + Control. Maybe when the High Thrust option appears (well I hope it appears for this and "reasons") AJ-260s 1x Tests 1 and 2 were "low thrust" tests and the 3rd and final AJ-260 test was a high thrust test. They changed the shape of the fuel causing the fuel to burn hotter/faster/Higher-pressure. This caused the fuel capacity (which is only about 1% less than the first two burns) to be used up in 70 vs 114 seconds. I am going from memory and do not have the... err wait one... ok real numbers (I forgot I made them easy to get): Tests 1 and 2 were 1.7 million pounds of fuel @ 3.56million pound force static thrust. 114 seconds (112 and 114 IIRC) Test 3 was same 1.7 million pounds of fuel (short by about 1% that of the above two tests) @ 5.9 million pound force static thrust for 70 seconds While I mentioned this in my Intermediate Saturn Article a couple months ago. The Initial INT-05 is a HIGH thrust AJ-260 and is NOT SUITABLE for manned or spacecraft launches. Best for disposing of things in space... INT-05A is a Low thrust AJ-260-2x (commonly called the full length AJ-260 even though it was not the longest proposed AJ-260) INT-05B is a Low thrust AJ-260-1x (the short AJ-260) I have a lot of documents on the AJ-260 and the naming convention for the 3 (yes three) sizes leaves a lot to be desired. Only the first two sizes were used in any of the Saturn Proposals I have found thusfar. But there are a lot of documents we don't have access to because they were initially classified as munitions. I am tempted to make up my own naming nomenclature based on what I am seeing in some of the documents. AJ-260-1x, -2x and -3x. The -2x being the "full length" one for the Saturn MLV and it being twice the length of the "Half length" -1x. YES you guessed it.... the -3x being 3 times the length of the -1x and one and 1/2 times that of the -2x!

Also Ronald D Moore... the guy who drops story lines for something new faster than My ADD kicks in! Yeah I am still butt hurt of him basically dropping Battlestar Galactica to make Capricia.... Also RETCON much. I haven't played enough KSP (well I am building my ISS based on Skylab so I haven't played too much with the AJ260s yet.) But this is one of the biggest concepts I wanted to play with. I think I have a cleaned up version of that drawing somewhere in my archive. Another one I want to play with is the 4+1+S-IVC wetlab (the real one not the ETS one!) on a Eros/Venus flyby. I am tempted to use Hyperedit to park the largest asteroid in the same orbit as Kerbin but out of the actual Kerbin SOI.... Plant a small probe on it so it doesn't disappear and launch a mission And the Tug/crew is done by the other dog developer @Orbital_phoenix

side-mount coming soon(TM) Just don't ask me when because I am not the dev Grimmas, has it by the right. In the future, before you apply Heat shields, I suggest you create an action group for each of your return capsules (there are 4 on Kh9 for example) The AG should have "Gather all science" or whatever it is called for the current pod you would eject NEXT.

nope works fine on 1.12.2 Mind you the aerodynamics are a bit wonky (I was gliding backwards for a bit) you DO have to download separately Retractable Lifting Surfaces you also DO need some small airbreaks as this thing will rip in at 79m/s with limited controlablity (the built in Airbrakes create a huge pitch change so don't use em

Great attempt... You have attempted something that Marshal SFC / ABMA never did. You made a stage up of actual Redstone and Jupiter tanks(ish.) Historically: MSFC/ABMA did NOT take Redstone and Jupiter tanks to make a Saturn. They used the machine tools and jigs that were used to make those previous rockets and made ALL NEW TANKS that had nothing, other than diameter, to do with Redstone and Jupiter. Some materials from the previous stages remained but mostly they were all new tanks. This saved a huge amount of mass as your test flight has just shown. By building it your way you are literally adding ~20% to the weight for useless things like inter tank fittings, separate Fuel and Oxidizer tanks within the big tanks and whatnot yet again proof the media is dumb. "oh they re-used the tools that made both the redstone and the Jupiter. it MUST be actual Redstone and Jupiter tanks making up the Juno-V stage... I will report it as such" Still all said and done, A) Valiant attempt, and B) safe getaway Suggestion before you launch your rockets (this is something I do all the time) go to the action groups and make certain you shut down EVERY engine that is not part of the escape maneuver. This won't stop a run away stage but might have saved the debris or at-least more of the rocket to recover. I mean you can ignore this step if you are doing it for the lols

while a good idea, J-2 is a Rocketdyne engine and RL20 and XLR-129 are both Pratt and Whitney. It is safe to say that the J-2T-400K needs a lot of TLC (I can actually reduce part count by creating a engine switch to add it to the standard J-2T-200/250) The performance would stay the same. But one less part to filter through (I am likely going to be doing the same to the LR87-AJ-11 for the AJ-11A of the Titan IV.) I haven't decided how far down the rabbit hole I want to dive with my adendum patches in the extras folder Just nice to see someone using one of my patches once and a while

INT-17 is a "Paper Rocket" not meant to actually fly. ALSO the program ALWAYS ran it in their simulations at like 75% S-II fuel load and 80% SIVB fuel load You are also using the 7 engine mount yes? also thanks for using my J-2T-400K patch RE removal of the J-2T-400K, That is my flavor text. The one document that covers it does not say where the extra power came from and I *ASSUMED* that it was from a HG-3 Turbo pump assembly/powerhead.

Aside from the Saturn C-2 having two completely different versions (pre Silverstein and post Silverstein commission) and the missing NASA S-III from said C-2 and the S-IVC that is a good collection of data there Friznit Yes the ETS S-IVC should really be the S-IVD NASA designed/designated a S-IVC as a 14.7 (ksp scale) meter long stage with a single J-2S engine. That would latter be rolled into the MLV as the MS-IVB-1A or -3 (at 14.67m KSP scale) Please note lengths be very subjective in space documents so... I am going to, this weekend, submit a FOIA for the Prelim design of the Saturn C-2 from 1960 to hopefully get more insight and design information on the Saturn S-III stage.

While the final product would have looked quite a bit different (the 4 tanks were of two sizes, and the engines were DIAGONAL to alleviate some of the asymmetry you were talking about,) This is very well done! Oh the Final version would have been jettisoned at fuel burn out as well to save precious dV. I think there was an option talked about for recovering the booster (as they have only enough fuel to get to about 15km altitude.

it is almost becoming a bad meme, even when un-intentional. =========================================================== Unrelated: Want to either A) thank the Dev Team for Fixing CADS... or B) thank Github for allowing me to download a version that works. I am back to building my Skylab Derived ISS.

wouldn't that be Atlas's Bouncing Big Baby Boi? Also a brief update on my Space Station and a RFI from others using the Apollo branch of the Github! You will notice that I have Zarya docked BELOW the Skylab core instead of inline with it. I am unable to dock Active to Passive, Passive to Passive or Active to Active with my CADS docking ports currently and am seeking info if this is happening to others as well. I launched the MOL based tug and Probe docking port as a test of other BDB docking ports (every one but CADS is working.) I launched 4 different launches to put a APAS port inline via the HABTECH adapter (I forget what the neck down part is called ATM)

J-2X "Aerobell" A semi flexible bell extension. this is not similar to modern 1,2,3 part bell extensions that we are used to as the material was flexible and actually changed shape during extension J-2X "Telescoping" A multi segment bell extension that was about 4-8 inches (estimate) thick . This was like 10 segments... so much like the 2 or 3 segment extensions we have but more complicated and harder to do (both IRL and in game) J-2X "Airmat" What is in BDB a flexible curtain that could fold up and would expand when the turbopump exhaust was ejected into it.

yes and much of the white in the "burnt" APollo capsule is actually caused by reactions with the salt water and the glue to the applique used for the silver insulation. Wait, real J-2X or fake "SLS- J-2X"???? Remember, J-2X was the name of a rocket engine family in the 1960s (we have one of the 3 variants in BDB!)

Confirmed, it worked for me. I dis-engaged autopilot on J2 burn out. Grabbed my payload, flipped and burned for Apoapsis until the PE was 120km with the SPS motor: CRAP was using the 1973 H-1 engines. Aside from that everything was as described. FULL HEAT SHIELD, Blk IV full up payload with RCS and CADS dockingport. *GUESS for Taintedlion.* You have a Life Support mod. It is adding weight. :shrugstar:

If you are using "standard" settings do this. Open the Ascent Path Editor... and turn off AUTOMATIC ALTITUDE TURN Then manually set your "Turn End Altitude:" to between 0 and 50km below your ideal Altitude for orbit... so long as the turn end is well above Atmosphere you are golden JNSQ the minimum you can set the end turn altitude is about 95km (I typically go for 150 or 200 as you see here the Automatic part assumes Stock KSP and forces Mechjeb to end the turn at 60km... regardless of if you are in atmo or not.

@TaintedLion@mozartbeatle Ok, so I have NEVER had luck with Mechjeb PVG. I don't use it it sucks. I used the classic assent profile in a build HEAVIER than you guys are dealing with for three reasons 1) I have a Hypergolic SM and SM engine (this gives me about +50dV over you but on the flip side it is a much lower TWR at takeoff and in space!) 2) I didn't use the amazing milkstool. In fact I removed it completely for the purposes of these tests (to eliminate anything it could add directly as a part) 3) I carried the Blk IV payload into orbit as you will see in the pictures. At 80km I had to shut off the Ascent guidance because it was commanding the rocket to crash back to Kerbin. I suggest this has nothing to do with the mod but rather has everything to do with Mechjeb. Mechjeb prioritized getting up to speed more than it did climbing even though "turn end altitude" was set at the 200km my orbit was set to. I ended up in a 277 x 161km orbit with plenty of fuel to de-orbit. In short, as the dev team is pushing these rockets closer and closer to reality, Mechjeb is having more and more problems with it.

I am surprised you didn't use an Atlas G/K and have the Centaur interstage under the SOT-1.875m bucket/skirt. I am glad your Pilot had a toilet under the Command bucket Get out and stretch their legs a little

sure but a 2nd hand source with no accurate cites are fully allowed so Wikipedia is still mob created trash instead of the goals of the founders. *SHRUGSTAR* You are using the obsolete part. search for LEO instead of Gemini It may not be unlocked at the point you are either. Further you are in Parachutes and not in the Control section where the OAMS actually is also are you DELETING the Bluedog_DB folder yourself or just letting CKAN do it (don't do the latter CKAN is great for installing new things, not so good when things get depreciated) Also it looks like