Pappystein

Big G was configurable. With the small SM (not the Saturn Launched Conic or Cylindrical to conic SMs) the BigG capsule itself was needed for supplies. (you know, Water, Oxygen food etc for the space station.) WIth the bigger capsules more space could be devoted to crew. The 4.25m Cylindrical SM (KSP scale) being the largets volume of the 3 SMs (thus capable of the most crew) With the Bigger Service Modules 8 comfortably or 10 or more with some crowding in the back row is easily possible with the Big G capsule. Of course that is Humans not Kerbals. Something to think about here Big Apollo (I don't know why I brought that up!) Is actually the Eros Flyby capsule. NASA was concerned 3 people would be too much of a workload (keeping watch) to make a flyby of the Eros Asteroid. So they sketched up a new capsule loosely based on the Apollo Capsule. That concept was latter branded Big Apollo and unlike Big G there was no "real" engineering done on it. Just conceptual engineering. WORSE it isn't an attachment to the existing Apollo Capsule, an entirely new capsule would need to be made (2 in front 6 in back with a dual conic shape) In the case of Big Gemini we not only have real engineering documents we also have a real mockup. https://www.wired.com/2012/05/manned-asteroid-flyby-mission-1966/ http://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-martian-adventure-to-mars-by-way-of.html https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Manned-Flyby-Mission-to-Eros-Smith/954e1293c9a72ad03487d58906d2da5a038cfae0 I think the most interesting thing about this is when returned to earth the Astronauts would be rescued by a Giant version of the HL-10 or X-24 Lifting Bodies. Giant HL-10 is shown in the documents. IE the Eros Command Module is not meant to survive re-entry. I have found a few actual NASA documents on the Eros and latter Big Apollo, but all of them are summed up nicely in the three links above. NOTE: For getting crew to a Space Station I think the ETS Apollo capsules are fine. In conjunction with Aardvark Deliveries. However Big G has the potential to replace, in one launch BOTH of those... So Personally: I prefer addition of the two larger SMs and an expanded Crew option for the Big G Addon tank over Eros/BigApollo. Also Fewer new parts needed. And we can always use the Venus Flyby module to replicate the Eros Flyby.... well ISH Oh and Cobalt, sorry I mentioned the Big Apollo. A) I don't know why I did so (I typed off my mouth I guess) and B) of all the "add on" things you could do to Saturn, it is one of the least interesting given it isn't recoverable.

CobaltWolf has put a lot of effort into the Saturn ID so I doubt it will be far away as far as release time. It might not release with the Saturn Revamp but probably one of the first things thereafter (totally my guess.) Personally other than the BigG Saturn sized Service Module I am hoping for Big Apollo and better yet RECOVERABLE Saturn

The MLV studies and Shuttle Launch overlap... BARELY They are within 9 months of each other. I understand some of the WHY after reading Jenkins's Shuttle Anthology. (well worth the ~$120 USD price.) Don't mean I like it. And Honestly the idea of me making parts for KSP is Pie in the sky. I would have to invest in Photoshop if nothing else. Trying to do the level of textures that the BDB team does in PAintShopPro is... well *YEAH RIGHT!* is the phrase that comes to mind. Minor correction to myself. The Grumman Shuttle proposals were in the Phase B (not Phase 1) of the Shuttle Program. The 518 would have 4x F401-PW-400 engines (naval version of the F100-PW-100) for flyback and self ferry. It would have two "large high power" main engines and a single RL10 as the on orbit OMS. 100% Hydrolox excepting the PW Turbofans. Those would be LF/A The Booster I would build would have been off the cheaper 532 version of the Grumman shuttle program. 5x F-1 Rockets powered by LFO/Kerolox. 6 Rolls Royce RB.211 Turbofans for flyback. The all up booster for 518 would have required ~16 of the Hydrolox SeaLevel version of the booster engine that flew on the shuttle. Seems easier to re-use 5x F-1s...

No problem. And sorry if it sounded harsh. About once every 3 months that request is posted. and while I have literally nothing more to do with the mod creation than you do it frustrates me. NOVA rockets are big ugly things. My favorite is the Martin Plug engine (12 I think, F-1s around a central plug to turn them into a giant aerospike) None of them were real workable designs. NOVA was intended to push foward the technology that we use in "regular" rockets. Not to actually be a rocket that was built. Much like the Rocketdyne X-1 program was to push the LR79/S-3D engine to the ends of it's technology, or the J-2X was to push the J-2 Engine to the ends of it's technology. We can thank the NOVA program for the engines developed under the J-2X program in the 1960s actually. The J-2X(Linear) and J-2X(Torodial) aerospikes (later named J-2L and J-2T) are direct descendants of the NOVA program. In fact, J-2L would end up being the test engine for the X-33 some 30 years later as the XRS-2200 PS, the Saturn MLV is basically the follow on to NOVA. Except that it was hoped to actually build those (stupid Nixion for liking the stupid space shuttle above all else!) I am severely tempted to try my hand again at modeling in KSP and make the Grumman Phase 1 Shuttle. As a follow on to ETS (so Shuttle only in the late 1980s)

Whoops, Followup My Launcher for that beast was a 100% Hydrolox XLR-129 Powered LDC. first stage with 5 XLR-129s and 4 GEM60s, and 2nd stage with a single XLR-129 VAC. Third stage was a CEntaur III powered by twin RL10s.... I tried the RL30 but it had overheat problems and blew up. About the cleanest view of my original probe from the post above. RL30 looks good until:

I haven't unlocked the legs yet in my playthrough... so I made this instead: Now my first attempt ended in a survived failure. I used the Lunar Orbiter as a chassis as you did but couldn't get the Lunar orbiter engine/fuel packs to go in 4x symmetry (they are node only apparently) So I am curious what tank engine combo you used. I used the engine 6x of the Lanadvermass from Probes+. I used a bunch of spherical Mono tanks from Tantares and didn't use lander legs because the 6x engines were wide enough that I doubted it would tip. PROBLEM: 6x engines was too high thrust! CRASH and lost everything but one 1x6 solar panel and the core (so it could communicate but not broadcast any science back to Kerbin. The above is my second attempt. This time I used the GCU and Battery Pack from Agena as a core. 0.9375x0.625 payload adapter above. There are 4x of the same Lanadvermass engines on this probe. A total of 12 Mono tanks and I eliminated the 3 duplicated science parts from the Origional probe. Since I do not have the Mariner legs unlocked I used the much bigger Gemini ones. But as you can tell from the shadows I am actually landed on the doors to the 1x6 solar arrays! @Beccab If you would post those craft files to KerbalX many of us would be appreciative!

I really wish people would actually do research before requesting things. Calling the Saturn C-8 a Nova rocket is like calling a car that gets airborne at high speed a hovercraft. C-8 is NOT NOVA. C--8 is SATURN C-8 and it was proposed as a way to get the original Lunar Command Module (you know, the Apollo command module that lands on the moon) to the moon. When Grumman proposed what became the Lunar Module, there was no need for C-8 and it was scrapped (along with C-2, C-3, C-4.) Several years later, Congress asked NASA why they were not using any Von Braun designs in the NOVA program... A Low level NASA administrator said Von Braun already had rockets of that size planned. That was not NASA doctrine but rather a flunkie being broken by a Congresscritter. THAT is the only connection between Saturn C-8 and NOVA. To cover themselves and avoid more Funding restrictions the Already complete Saturn C-8 prelim design was then thrown into the already completed NOVA program. NOVA did not pay for Saturn C-8 (the US Army did) and Saturn C-8 was NOT developed for NOVA. So sure, you could call Saturn C-8 a NOVA by that... but it isn't. It does not help that Von Braun himself was probably the instigator for getting his rockets into the NOVA program.... As a way of staying relevant. But in the end, NASA spent zero NOVA budgeted dollars on the Saturn C-8. So Not NOVA.

Took you so long?! I still didn't realize it (boots up KSP to build a similar lander for my science career!)

I was referring to the "engine mount ring" is visually below the S-IVB mount instead of touching it. IF that is AS DESIGNED then cool. If not it just needs to move a little bit up for "full contact"

@Zorg Time to give you some praise and adulation! I didn't get to test all the engines in flight yesterday but I looked at them all. You have made some amazing engines with these new toyz. I can't wait for the final balance passes on them. As I noted above, the RL20-P3 booster engine does not QUITE have enough to boost a full up Saturn II stage (worried about what will happen after the re-scale.) But suffice to say they did marginally OK. (An Apollo Blk III capsule with the BlkV SM to LKO but with almost no AZ50/NTO left in the Service module.) My original attempt at getting an over Heavy Saturn II INT-17 utilizing the biggest MS-II tankage from the Extras folder was sub orbital. (Saturn MLV MS-IIA tank, Saturn ETS S-IVC upper stage, Venus/Eve Flyby module, and full Lunar CSM on an Apollo Blk III) Final attempt with correct tanks was still too much fuel but ran out of D/V to get to orbit if I lowered it to the correct 68% First stage fuel load and 55% 2nd stage fuel load (going from memory on those fuel loads... 2nd stage may be as high as 98% max IDR) First and last attempt both shortly after launch (look at mechjeb d/v window as well as CSM and length of stages to see what I described above Found two potential issues with the RL20 Vac

well I DID make several Saturn II rockets... all RL20s (P3 x 7 for the first stage and VAC for the 2nd) None have performed as "designed" but I am getting closer with each launch all in all the RL20 is a good HG-3 replacement/analog real hardware vs Hypothetical hardware. But I will stick with the INT-18 and use standard J2s and the UA-120x and SMRU as needed

I don't see a moratorium, I plan to after I DL them. Going to see if the RL20 will actually launch a Saturn II in JNSQ ala INT-17 OH and Thanks @Zorg! This makes up for spending my morning elbows deep in engine grease trying to get my lawn tractor ready to mow the grass!

That(well something similar) was one of the Saturn I proposals

you realize that you can't "build" a Saturn I cluster tank right? The stage isn't REAL Redstone and Jupiter tanks. Rather it is All new tanks made on the TOOLS for Redstone and Jupiter. IE they are not the same thing. But to answer your question. Clustering Stage 1 was always on the books

Get your Cryogenic AJ10 powered Apollo here: You will need to patch the files via MM to support LH2/LOX but it is the correct parts

I will continue the spam of love for this. The art looks really REALLY good Benjee! Adding to my "Shuttle build" for KSP naow

sadly that would be rather hard because the aerodynamic shape of the launch vehicle would GREATLY impact the plume of any sort of Aerospike engine (be it plug, True Toroidal or Linear)

WAIT! someone posted a REAL NOVA rocket drawing and not the fake Saturn C-8 "Nova"???? See folks if you want NOVA you want a rocket that can have 18 M-1 engines in the first stage.... not 8 F-1s (remember F-1s are smaller than M-1s!) Ugh, I can see why you made the SL and Vac M-1s the same contour... just looking at the turbo machinery it would have to be completely re-done as well... including attachment points. BTW the emissives are starting to look nice

Eh, there were lots of proposals for what to do with M-1. Sea Level, Very large Expansion bell, I think I saw a document about Airmat extending bell as well but going from memory on that. Saturn II was a series of 3 proposals.. I wrote a quick and dirty history piece about 16 days ago on it. Saturn II INT-17 was the "Theoretical" potential with a new "Theoretical" engine that was called HG-3 in ONE series of papers. As TJ and Zorg have pointed out, there was no real HG-3 just a bunch of papers theorizing on engine of such and such performance could be built and one company called that engine HG-3. INT-17 would be a S-II stage with 7 "HG-3 Engines" And a standar S-IVB stage. both the S-II and S-IVB stages would be at a reduced fuel load. And the stack could launch an Apollo Capsule into LEO much like the Saturn IB but cheaper (assuming Saturn V was still in production) INT-18 is a standard S-II stage with 5 J-2S or J-2S-SL engines, and 2, 4 or 5 UA-1204, UA-1205 or UA-1207 SRMs. Full fuel and depending on ground lit or airborne lit J-2s could lift a heck of a lot more to LEO than Saturn IB or even the ETS Saturn IE and IFs could INT-19 is the same as INT-18 substituting up to 12 Minuteman TU-122 engines for the UA-120x SRMs. The Payload would trade fuel load again (none of the INT-19s would fly with a full fuel load, just like the INT-17 and SOME of the INT-18 combinations) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_II Oh and a 4x SRMU(3seg) booster for an INT-18 would be a giant lifter... Almost the Payload capacity of Saturn V by my estimate

Logs onto KSP forums. Goes to BDB Forum Page Goes to BDB Dev Checks Git-hub notes for latest information Sees a new release has been had... sees no mention of new engines *CRASH* Picks up computer off of floor, makes coffee, cries in coffee. I am kidding! But that is my level of "want" on a certain set of beautiful engines. I has planz to show why the Saturn II INT-17 is a joke. Can't do it without the RL-20 being it is an HG-3 analog. Oh and Saturn II INT-18 + 3 segment SRMU FTW! and congrats team on the incremental update Some well needed changes

To quote an old movie. DANG MAN! That is some serious engine

And yes that was the culpret VVC is causing the issue. I am going to re-download it without using CKAN and give it one more try. Given the issues I had with mass doubling on all of Beale's mods as well as some parts in a couple other mods with CKAN they can forget to have my support forever more (I only came back to CKAN to see if they had improved on all my old complaints... instead I have NEW complaints on-top-of the old ones!)

The only thing I can say is you are either not using Autostrut correctly or you have another mod that is artificially INCREASING your wobble factor. I have had constant problems with the various KJRs breaking my ships in the past so I avoid such mods like the plague. Autostrut works amazingly well for any of the myriad of rocket builds I have done (including an Asparagus staged Saturn V multibody with 4 full up S-IC boosters on the core.) I noticed your post on Redit for the same issue... you mentioned BDB saturn LES. Auto-strut it to Heaviest part and it is ROCK SOLID on any build I have used including 1.11.2

P&W was out of the running... but not officially at that time yes. P&W was an outsider. They had one "FAIR" engine to their Name (the RL-10.) Terrestrial engines be damned. NASA wanted a company they could "rely" on. They felt that they could only do that with Rocketdyne. Then when Rocketdyne failed to make turbopumps that would do what they said they would, NASA paid P&W for their Turbo-pump design effort... Slapped it onto the Rocketdyne combustion chamber and exhaust bell and the actual SSME was born. Had NASA bet on P&W it is likely P&W would have exited the rocket engine market with their need to "completely re-engineer" the XLR-129 to the 2100kn range. Rocketdyne learned with the E-1 and F-1 you can't just scale things up in Rocket engines... it doesn't work that way. P&W would have known this... but Congress not so much. There would have been congressional hearings as to why NASA didn't pick the company that designed the bigger engine outright... In other words.. LOTS OF POLITCS for no gain. It was best thing for P&W that Rocketdyne won the contract. And that P&W had to come in and save the Rocketdyne engine, thus still earning a tidy sum from the SSME program lifecycle. But between this and the new RL-20 we have some potential for the paper HG-3 placeholder engine to be replaced with real engines. YAY! the TEST: Saturn INT-17 My least favorite Saturn II proposal. Eh you mean a year and 2 months ago Feb 2020.... Unless there is another Github you wish to share? Zorg already answered this. The goal is YES the solution is PROBABLY the implimentation is yet to be seen.

Thanks for checking on the 405Hs. I have replaced all the mods I downloaded with CKAN... wait maybe... Re re downloading scatter... SRB + Waterfall do not look good together per the Dev (Nertea) and our own Zorg. There is a reason those stay with partical effects.