Pappystein

Um, I actually like this rocket... although the Blue upper first stage tank paint with an Orange 2nd stage is... ugly....

Be Weary here. While there is a lot of stuff that is technically correct. There are too many parts of Astronautix where a "blurb" becomes "Fact" instead of properly researched FACT (Saturn-NOVA anyone?) Excluding congress de-funding NOVA in the early 1960s to add more funding to Saturn they are not linked. I posted a while back the entire INT series from actual NASA documents. gosh I still need to get my "historical archive" up and running Repost: @Starhelperdude Hope that helps. While my reaserch started on the Astronautix website I did not stop there because other than names there isn't much that is SUPER trust-worthy. The data tables and information I acquired from actual published NASA documents (mostly from the NTRS servers)

THAT is a Nova. Interesting choice of parts to tweak-scale What did you use for a 1st stage engine? as an asside... QUIT HATING ON Saturn II! it is the BEST Suggestion. Don't drop your PE below 50KM until you are already near the planet. use the final bit of fuel in the CM to do a "de-orbit" burn to reduce the AP down a bit just before the Atmo interface. It may not be "real to life" but neither is KSP no matter how accurate the models are.

The Rocket looks good. But couple things. 1) is the Navball Brown or Blue on the launch pad? This is indicitive of something upside down. 2) Are you using any mods like Kerbal Joint Reinforcement. While some people LOVE that mod(in it's various incarnations) I have had nothing but bad luck with... oh WAIT loosing control of rockets! 2a) if you are using FAR (Feraam Aerospace Research) you can have serious control-ability problems, because FAR has very precise requirements in rocket construction that does not always play nice with mods. 3) if you have multiple Control points (eg Guidance systems) controlling the rocket from one that is not in the same plane as the others (EG 3 are pointed down and you are controlling the rocket from one that is pointed Up..... ) can lead to weird behaviors.

Why? Saturn II is awesome!

I am not an expert on this portion so I will say I am not 100000000% certain. But We can intuit several factors. 1) while minuscule, AmatureAstronnaut1969 is not wrong about Earth Gravity. I don't think it, alone, would be enough to settle an un-settled fuel supply at the engine pump head... but then we get to 2 2) INERTIA. The Rocket is still moving forward Through/Away from the center of Earth Gravity. The 2nd stage is ignited as soon as the first stage's retros are kicked in. I *THINK* it was discovered that there was no need for Ullage because the fuel had not had a chance to MOVE AWAY from the engine as it was "pinned" in place by the Inertia of it's own mass. Summation: Now if it had coasted for many many seconds or minutes or any amount of time that an outside force could impart it's own vector of acceleration... then Ullage would still be needed. Thus we are left with the nearly zero delay of ignition from 1st stage separation, Inertia + acceleration of earth based gravity invalidating the need for Ullage on the S-II stage.

No, that is an often stated miss-understanding. People didn't comment on it until after the Ullage motors were reduced and then removed.... Didn't mean it had anything to do with it... It is kind of like how the actions of a congressional aid putting a saturn drawing in the Nova Report causes everyone thinks Saturn was part of Nova. That would also be like me owning a 1974 AMC Javelin and calling it a Dodge because in the 1980s Dodge absorbed AMC....

Thanks Zorg! While I use Github Desktop and web interface pretty extensively (and have the Saturn Branch in the desktop interface longer than the Github Issue has been happening,) it is not easy for someone new to Github to really use. Posting the link like this (maybe a temporary edit to the Front page @CobaltWolf?) is a big help to many who want to play with new toyz when they are broken and still being polished by the team.

Thanks for the stream tonight!

why not both?!

DANG Zorg! that looks nice. Glad Skylab and Space Lab are space borne.... imagining Coffee... Hot... Black... being spilled Also, Nikons are good cameras... I have just always gotten better long lenses from Cannon for the Bang/$ for my Airshow photography

S-ID is one of a myriad of proposals for alternatives to the Space Shuttle It is a Stage and a Half S-IC (the center engine is the sustainer engine and the outer 4 engines and their mounting hardware and structures all drop away like the Atlas Booster skirt. It is NOT part of the Saturn MLV programs... it comes after that. (1968 vs 1971 or 2 I think) This is a good kitbash of existing parts to make the S-1D. Should give you some idea.

Hmmmm Someone is a real MAC user..... not one of the modern fake-Mac users (REAL MACs run on MOTOROLA PROCESSORS! I am KIDDING!!! Smile and be happy ) The MAC bowling ball with the frowny face because you didn't insert the OS-6.03 3.5" Boot diskette (the old macs were either color or B&W and had a 9.5" almost square (it wasn't 4:3) CRT screen. With a big handle behind them... and a potential add on of a hard drive or a 2nd floppy drive as a module the footprint of the computer below it (the computer and monitor being one single unit.) The Computers were somewhat insultingly/affectionately called Bowling balls and my school, the year of my graduation had to "scrap" 38 Mac SEs with 30mb (yes megabyte) Hard drives. Last day of school we took them out to the parking lot, and literally went bowling with them.... got 2 or 3 throws per unit before it broke into pieces..... FUN Ok Kidding aside (and PLEASE no one take my chain yanking seriously.... I am old school and OS6 was the last good Mac OS in my opinion... then again MS DOS 6.2 for my IBM compatible .) The IVA work is top notch. although I am curious why the camera is a Kikon instead of Kinon... or a Kannon (totally getting subbing K for C is the same spelling but now in German) Beale thank you for donating your time to this it looks AWESOME! Zorg thanks for making polishing this into the parts (I believe that is what you have done with Beal's work)

You are Awesome Birdog!

That is actually part of the same proposal set so same thing?

I have mentioned it a few times in the past. Thanks to ETS (a great story if you haven't read it by the by) we have two S-IVC stages. the NASA real proposal, as part of the Eros Flyby Vehicle and it would latter merge back into MLV as a light-weight alternative to the MS-IVB-1A or -3. Can I suggest that the ETS Parts be designated ES-x eg I have the ES-IVC listed below... instead of S-x for legacy Saturn parts or MS-x for the INT/MLV family (and yes I think all the INT family of parts should be designated MS-x where MS-IB-11 is the INT-11 S-IB stage. MS-IVB-4(S)B 4.25 11.47 Basic Redesign of base S-IVB for strenght (heavier) MS-IVB-1A 4.25 14.67 MS-IVB-3 4.25 14.67 S-IVC 4.25 14.7 <--- NOT the ETS S-IVC but the actually Designed one (SingleJ-2) MS-IVB-2 4.25 14.87 ES-IVC 4.25 x ETS S-IVC

Thanks. I buy Reference books but I will hope someone has access to it and can just post any S-4 engine data they find (pictures nice.) I don't want to shell 60 for a book that will likely remain on my shelf after the fact.

The engine looks SWEET! Can't wait till I fly it.... Which sadly won't be for a while given the project I have undertaken... RE S-4, It never left the drawing board. Atleast Battleship bells and functioning combustion chambers were made for the E-1. The biggest source for it is : http://www.astronautix.com/s/s-4engine.html There is a potential that an old Janes All the Worlds Aircraft from the early 1960s would have more.... But I don't have access to anything older than 1974 OR newer than 1954 That 20 year span there are none in any reference libraries in my area. Two different Wiki groups list Janes AtwA 1964 if anyone out there has that year (or the year before or after maybe....) Also, Looks like Rocketdyne intended the S-4 to be used as their "alternative" engine for a Florine powered X-15B ***SHUDDER***

The things you miss when you Unsuccessfully try to cut your finger off... and then getting Vertigo 2 days latter. The E-1 looks amazing in it's raw form Zorg. As one of the original cheerleaders begging for this engine to come to BDB I was very happy with the old model (aside from the 1.25m ring on top) The new model is a light year or more, better, and fixes the giant ring issue... So 2 E-1s in my Atlas stage and a half builds can now be a thing! I HOPE! Now all that is needed for Titan I is an S-4... which is basically a LR-105 but with a different upper atmo bell and more thrust + inline LR101s(which are in game already). I have never found any detailed drawing for it but it suposedly shares 85% commonality with the LR-105 from Atlas. I assume it is an LR-105 without the difuser and with a Rao Bell of larger expansion and braized tube wall construction. *EDIT* Hmm, now that I think about it, that almost sounds like the Bell on the existing E-1...... CUT AND PASTE! *EDIT* An E-1 / S-4 powered Titan would be cool (Please PLEASE don't think we need a new bespoke engine.) I am going to dig into my documents I used for my Titan Article and try to just come up with a good MM Patch for the LR-105 to turn it into the S-4. If I do it right, it wouldn't be an engine to use on Atlas unless you are going for light payloads.

If by Mature you mean Quality Long lasting work and continued growth? YEP! If by Mature you mean DED... Not for me to say. But given how Cobalt talks about the future on stream... I AM INFERRING no!

I can't speak to aerodynamic problems because I am not experiencing them. I would look at other mods being the culprit there. However I **CAN** speak to the SRBs since this is something I brought up years ago. It is the Decoupler that is causing them to spin out of control. It offsets the COM by an appreciable amount when the SRM has burnt out.

PEGASUS! NOICE!

Venus Flyby was in the old Saturn Parts as well (although it did not have anywhere near the detail.) I use the parts for Venus Flyby quite often for alternative space stations so I am glad they are continuing. Also an alternative to the Venus Flyby was the Eros flyby which would have involved a "Big Apollo" if you will. It WASN'T APOLLO but it was a 6 man capsule that was Apollo shaped. It did not have any relation to Apollo other than it was launched on a Saturn V Rocket and was conic in shape... by that standard Gemini and Apollo are obviously related !!!!! It is ALMOST as bad as calling a Saturn C-8 proposal NOVA (it isn't NOVA please stop calling it that! Nova is a paper Rocket AND WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE BUILT!!!!) **OK I got off the soapbox** The Eros Command Module would turn and dock with the "EFB" Module just like Apollo would turn and dock with the Venus Flyby module. The biggest differences were Eros Flyby was launched with a S-IVC stage and wetlab (yes S-IVC existed in real life even if it wasn't built. THIS IS NOT ETS!) There were 3, that I have found, proposals. A near duplicate of the Venus Flyby excepting a different docking mechanism and the longer S-IVC wetlab. To a two part "extending" structure between the S-IVC-wetlab and the EFB module... (to allow solar panel deployment,) to my favorite, a S-IVC but only with S-IVB tankage and including a much larger "Radiation Shelter." Unlike the VFB module Micrometeorite protection was in the form of a new skin coating... Other proposals were more like the Venus Flyby... one being almost a duplicate except the EFB module would be built in space and outfitted with better creature comforts. IIRC Eros Flyby was a 3.75 year mission, or about 2x as long as Venus Flyby.

Looking Great, Does this mean we are going to want to have FRMS so we can land those probes? No, this is REAL NASA stuff not ETS alt timeline stuff Although you could use the parts for an ETS game

you mean ONE of the two other Big G? Using KSP scales for the diameters... there is the 3.125ish one that is in game. (the So called MIN MOD for launch on Titan III rockets) the 3.75m Cylinder... which is not and the 4.25m Cone. The 3.125ish one and the 3.75m one would interface with a shortened SLA. The 4.25 cone would have an interestage created new in-place of the SLA. Wow you are lucky to have a copy of those documents.