Pappystein

Your Saturn IC/IB would be made up of more "Kerbal-Friendly" sizes. TL:DR Version, the Rocket (esp the Saturn V) will look a little off but it will work and you will have expended a minimal effort to make it work. Long Version. Specifically 3.75m for all of the IB stack, The S-IV ends up at 3.125m and the decoupler between S-I and S-IV now will fit, the SLA will taper from 3.75m to 2.5m (incidently 2.5m is the correct size for the C+SM for 0.64 scale... unrounded it is 2.4958m IIRC at 0.64 scale) The S-IC/S-II will be smaller as well but I think they are 5.25m (I don't remember off the top of my head.)

Unless you have other part mods to get a SLA from, I wouldn't recommend using the Saturn Rescale. Rather I would patiently await Cobalt to get through everything else that is a higher priority before he gets back to Saturn. Sure the Saturn Rockets are quite 0.64 scale. BUT then again, and I wasn't around this forum thread when Cobaltwolf decided what size to use, the Saturn is basically made up of Stock or "logical" Stock progression sizes. IIRC S-IVB would have to be 4.25m to be 0.64 RL diameter, (same for S-I/-1B/-1(a) with E-1) The S-IV stage would end up being IIRC 4.0m Max Diameter, the AJ260s would also be 4.25m diameter. Lets not talk about S-IC/S-II. Ugh, Does this mean I get to bring litigation against you, Cobaltwolf, for using Asbestos on your F-1 Engines? Seriously, while I won't likely use them, I think you took an ugly duckling and made it look like a Trumpeter Swan with that Insulation. Is that a B9 Switch or is it a separate engine?

This is a known issue that has zero impact on the game. It will likely go away after some old parts are depreciated after the next update.... Which is coming.... errr soon(TM) Good job reporting it, and welcome to the realm of the space Kracken (Aka the Forums!)

No reason to yell... I will just whisper Cobaltwolf is focused on Titan with this update, Gemini has gotten zero love on it's own (just the 1 man lander) Now returning you to your regular program. Didn't you mean that they're super buggy FUN right now? RE: The stream last night that I missed, were you using your 2.5x RSS test build you used to play on? I see a Centaur/Transtage for both launches, did that result in over-performance or "just right" and lastly How bad, if at all, did Boil off affect your launch plans?

I haven't used the IIIE fairing yet (have not unlocked it and I don't want to be spoiled by doing this in sandbox (although I might for a proof of concept.) So unless there are no extra nodes on the IIIE/IV PLFs...no need for you to make extra parts in my opinion. I am thinking about taking the Titan IIIC on the right, and between Stage 2 and the Transtages, place the Titan IIIE fairing.... then a double decoupler (or a separator....) and Viola... you burn to Apogee, and while you are coasting there (since Stage 2 will be mostly depleated in a 2.5x scale system at that point,) you jettison the twin Transtage + Gemini and then spin around and dock with the Lander in the IIIE fairing that was mounted below the Transtages.... Spin back around and continue your flight. You realize, now that you mentioned it, we HAVE to talk about it! Hmm, I like the idea of a Centaur Transfer vehicle. That got me thinking about an.... un-realistic launcher (4x UA-1207s, to start because it is too heavy otherwise.....) However I think I am going to modify it into a Double Centaur launch. Launch 1. Atlas-Centaur Agena-GTV + Solar and big antenna. Leaves a lunar orbit RETURN vehicle for the Gemini Capsule. Storable Agena Stage so no issues with boiloff. Parking orbit is at 50 or 55km above Munar Surface The Lander COULD be placed above the Agena with a Seperator Launch 2 (only after Launch 1 is safely in Lunar Orbit.) Gemini Titan-IIIE-6 Gemini Centuar has a PLF between the upper stage and the SM with the Lander... Attempt to set Periapsis to ~40km above Munnar surface. Have a small Solid made to calculate correct D/V to circularize at 40km above Mun mounted in the SM section above the Lander. This way if Centaur boils off too much Hydrogen you are not using up RCS to circularize. If lander is on The Atlas Centaur Agena launch then delete the PLF... Centaur needs Avionics module (use the 1.875m MOL one to "Simplify" part count.) I think the Lander on the Atlas Centaur Agena GTV makes more sense "safety-wise"

Purdy Purdy, Question for everyone of my fellow Kerbalnauts... What do you suggest, a 2 Rocket Lunar Orbital rendezvous launch or do you think a Shenanigan Rocket is the way to go (use a PLF with the nodes on to stack Gemini + A Transtage or 2 ABOVE the lander) I am just curious how others are going to try to launch this beau of a little lander.

I need to make a web archive of my hard-drives I have literally tens upon tens of PDFs with no rational name on space program stuff. I will dig a bit and forward what ever I can find... like I said the Agena C comment was almost an aside on why NASA decided not to look at Vega, and not by any of the people involved (almost like some sort of press release for some supplier to a major company (NASA,GE,Lockheed whomever) So I take it you want anything I have on agena that does not require a trip through my brain, got it and roger! First... Aw shucks! You said you wouldn't Do HG-3 most recently so I was hoping There used to be a picture on one of the various incarnations of Astronautics of a RS-56 (I think it was an Atlas at-least) with this type of material on it. It was shiny in one picture and dull in other. I don't know if that was caused by the cameras/camera operator (the dull images were less than ideal picture quality almost like someone set the FOV and F-Stop + ISO wrong + the old Crop and then stretch the image to blow up the engine part. The Shiny images were with out doors with the sun obviously low in the sky (long shadows) but high enough for a bright/clear image (not dawn/dusk say 10AM or 4-6PM) Both images were on the same page and I have not been able to find it for at-least 2 years now...

Sorry for the Necro post, I think I have finally recovered from my power outage. Just a few loose ends to clean up 1) So I agree that that is not a Bell LR81 engine. However the fact that it was made by Lockheed Space Systems (the builder of Agena) and Agena-C was "Canceled" and lastly that the internal tankage is approximately the same diameter of some of the proposals descriptions of Agena C I have seen... Do NOT make it Agena C. I agree. I was drawing the conclusion that it COULD BE what Agena C was supposed to be / a logical evolution to Agena 2000, and in part WHY Agena 2000 was proposed for Atlas V Light. Nothing else. I am sorry if my verb-age led anyone down a different route.... FWIW what little I have on Agena C comes from a document on why Vega was canceled (not by NASA or GE so... less than an ideal document to quote I know.) 2) Nope, Don't think it is to bad looking at all. I assume I am either looking at your attempt at a HG-3 or an Insulated F-1? If HG-3 I think it will give you some unique things to do.... You can always go the route that the grey area around the Combustion chamber IS the combustion chamber... It covers the two "drawings" we have of the HG-3 well. Alternatively you could "fill in" the area using greebles and gizmoes off the RS-25 (power head has a similar shape to the profiles in the "Drawings" of HG-3) If you make it the combustion chamber make it a dirty stainless (Smooth but not a uniform color) with the Reflection plugin.... The unique asymmetrical shape could give some good results with shine enabled. I ain't the texturing pro, I will leave that discussion to you! 3) Confirmed. I have used the Service Bays to land probes that would otherwise have been destroyed. you first use the doors as wings and slow your descent, then right before impact you rotate 90 degrees and pull so the corner of the door hits first. If you manage to get slow enough while generating lift you can land a pretty significant probe this way. Ultimate in Kerbal Cheatyness but if it can't be fixed who cares?

So after ~40 hours with no power (I think, I would have to be awake enough to actually do math) I get on to see 1) AMAZING Saturn Engines. I LOVE the new textures Cobalt! Then 2) I see this. The part that makes me the sickest in the entire MOL lineup (but I have to keep using as it is the ONLY 1.857m docking port I have in the game) will be replaced someday soon. YES! IF it wouldn't cause a huge amount of work, could I suggest, an alternate version where the docking port/tunnel in the center of the ring is offset to one edge of the ring to fit a proper Gemini MOL SM? Yes that means the node for docking would be off center but then you could have a docking port recessed into the bottom of the SM to line up perfectly and have room for the De-Orbit SRM six pack below the port on the SM. Alternatively if/when you ever decide to make new SMs for Gemini you could just center the docking port and have 6 Solids surrounding it. I am guessing by the extra lower tank you didn't have enough D/V to orbit? BTW I love the new plume...

While I wasn't actually referring to Agena C, what I was referring to, with an appropriate GCU (that is not on it by default) COULD be an Agena-C concept. I was referring to the propulsive section of the KH-9 Gambit as Big Agena. From the photos at The USAFM it has a Bell LR81 type engine with a different engine bell then that of the latter Agena D/ Ascent Agenas. The actual tank setup is similar to the various Agena proposals with drop tanks (just the tanks are not dropped and they are in a protective skin/structure) When I said Fat Agena I wasn't actually talking about any program or version in specific. But rather the type of stage, a Storable Fuel upper stage of high fuel fraction and high efficiency. Also fun fact, Agena 2000 (1.875m KSP scale Agena) that was proposed and then quickly shelved for Atlas V lite. It is my speculation that Agena 2000, was just a KH-9 / possibly a KH-11 Propulsive module with an appropriate GCU added. Obviously we do not know what the KH-11's propulsive module actually looks like /is equipped with) so this is speculation ON-TOP of speculation ...

As Cobalt stated above, I tend to shoot from the hip This is because I have a pretty impressive memory (sorry NOT trying to brag)..... But again like Cobaltwolf stated, I don't do a good job checking sources when posting and can easily get things wrong. I have been trying to state things as IIRCs for a while now to "cover myself" and cover you all... AKA stating the info is out there but I might not be remembering it correctly. Here is the problem with a very good but NOT eidetic or photographic memory. You might remember the facts and can shoot them off the hip but you don't always remember WHERE you got them and that can lead to you being wrong more than right. Oh and if you THINK you know the answer, you are likely going to share it even if it might be wrong. Of course the advantage is that even when I am wrong, it can help others to find the info themselves via either a more focused search or allow them to realize there is a different way/place to find it out. The scary thing is this. I don't know a lot about Space rocketry. I got into KSP mostly because I like the lego aspects of it (and I am at BDB because I want QUALITY, HISTORIC, and AWESOME models!) To your questions specifically now @Friznit I read the Technical documents, I don't use history pages as anything but a reference for the technical documents. While not in degree or certification, I am an Engineer at heart, I take things apart and try to come up with a better way to build them (hence my love for KSP) 98% of my knowledge on Space/Rockets comes from my Voluminous Library of AIRCRAFT technical/engineering books. The rest is from deep dives on the inter-tubes-webs err internet! (you know those rabbit holes you fall down when researching X and end up learning about A-B-C instead?) Now in 10 minutes of reading the document Cobaltwolf linked above I already am referencing (in my head) engine design (jet) and car performance upgrades (superchargers for cars or piston engined planes) to cross-talk my way through understanding page 17 where the HG-3's turbo-pumps are described. Interesting. *100% Speculation here* so it looks like the idea of a re-built RS-25 might be more accurate than my previous suggestion. What the upper lobes are appear to be stacked small diameter centrifuge pumps. The centrifuge is chosen for throttleablity and the stack series pumps for size and weight concerns (I don't have the mass vs mass-flow math to check but I am guessing that a single Centrifugal pump to power a HG-3's flow rate would be a massive 50-65 inches in diameter... much to big and heavy to carry on a Rocket motor of this size. That all being said I would suggest an HG-3 look alike would be a RS-25 powerhead scaled down to J-2S powerhead size, and a much smaller bell underneath it to meet the 133x80 dimensions. ============================================================== Onto the Titan Payload update. 1) love the idea of a Conical parachute for the UA-12x/SRMU/Soltans. 2) Love the idea for BigG these are the two most wanted (by me atleast) BigG SMs. 3) I have never had the need to do this before now but is there an appropriately textured adapter to go between the Gemini Nose cone and the Agena-D parts? I am thinking about making a Gemini lander carrier rocket that will carry a Fully Fueled Agena D or Fat Agena to 2000km orbit so that the Agena can then place the lander in Munnar or Minimus orbit and I don't have to carry the mass with my Gemini capsule. I am thinking of this for a 2.5x or 3.2x play-through. 4) So I was too tired to ask yesterday but the Apollo nose fix, is that a re-configurable part to allow for both docking ports ?

I have a total WAG on that one. A Huge Turbopump or plumbing that wraps around the combustion chamber

1) fair nuf... I was just thinking that with a minimal of parts you could make the entire corona family using the already in game parts as a basis (Agena + the Mini return capsule) I DO NOT want you to do more work than you already have to so just take it as an idea if you ever get board 2) can you tell I have worked almost 30 hours in 2 days? Goo for Two would have been more appropriate... AKA a single part with 2 Goo experiments. 3) I agree it is a Silly engine... But I might have a way to make a visually distinctive engine that is obvious in it's J-2 heritage. Think J-2S combustion chamber and pipes scaled up ~8% Add an external turbopump ala RD-191 and use a solid wall nozzle like the RS-25 uses for the extension portion only of the bell. If it is a crap idea, ignore it... if it gives you an idea, use it when you feel you have the time. This is already in the Extras folder under Pafftek Saturn MLV.

You can actually make a C-3 with the parts made for the S-IVC. The 2x engine mount with J-2s, and the Extension tank for S-IVC are actually the "Right" size for the 1st generation C-3's S-III stage At that juncture C-3 was S-1(4x E-1 Engines) S-3 (2x J-2 engines small tank), S-IV or S-IVB (Payload dependant not cost dependant.) and "Big Centaur" Big Centaur was canceled before the 2nd Centaur prototype flew and was never fleshed out/explained better than "a bigger Centaur" A lot of people assume the S-IV stage is "Big centaur" but the Big Centaur was to use the RL12 engine which was 10% bigger (dimensionally) than RL10 and had a thrust similar to the much later RL10A3 (IIRC it might have been an earlier RL10 upgrade!) SO: A 1960 or earlier C-3 rocket was a Cluster tank with either 4 E-1s or 8 H-1 engines, followed by a mini stage (S-III) with 2x J-2 engines on a small Hydrolox tank) with S-IV or S-IVB depending on the payload for the upper stage. Please note that at this juncture S-IVB was an S-IV with a single J-2... it was later upgraded to the large tank S-IVB we know and love today! The early problems at P&W with the J-2 engine (Hydrolox isn't as simple as a Hydrogen powered Jet engine after all) delayed the J-2 several years and resulted in the more common S-I, S-II, S-IV for C-3 in 1961 And yes, the only reason Pratt and Whitney won the J-2 contract was because of their Project Sunburn (a Hydrogen powered Jet engine) had more hours of "safe" operation than Aerojet did with the Hydrolox LR-87... well that at the thrust level requirements it would opperate at, the LR-87 would have required 2x chambers per engine complicating the arrangements for multi engine setups and just taking up extra space in general....

Any-chance of a Goo for Too? I love how you have made your goo purple. too bad it would be "tough" to animate the goo to do different things when you do experiments at different locations. (Shiver in the cold on Kerbin or Layhey, fill the whole thing when in deep space, etc....) On the subject of the Lander... a 1.875m cargo module 2 to 2.5x the length of the lander (roller doors instead of shuttle type swinging doors would be awesome if possible.) might be a great way to get the lander and Gemini in a single stack to Mun/Minimus. Alternatively launch 2 rockets, one a Titan IIIC(23) derived rocket with lander and a good comm unit on the Transtage... Place in orbit of Mun. The Transtage becomes a relay sat. the Second being a Titan IIIC(23) with a payload of a 2nd Transtage with Gemini attached. IDK it is a Cobalt decision (we can do the 2 rocket launch today... could even do it with an Atlas-Vega or Atlas Centaur. ) On the subject of the Legs/Aux tanks/RCS that are modeled for the lander. They look very good.

Sokay... so I already have a Science probe based on Titan I (old model) in the Extras folder... and I like the crash, survive and THEN run science features of it. However I am all fore this... except I would reverse the Parachute and Heat shield. Make the expansion part the chute holder and the return curve the actual parachute (neatly nestled in the 1.5-0.625 adapter (IIRC the Mk-IV should be 0.625, not 0.9375... but you have the refs I don't) If the mass was balanced about the geometric center (top to bottom) the part stack would fall NARROWEST first... The wider area acts like an air-brake and slows the whole stack down.... insignificantly but it does. Further, aerodynamically, if you weight the section you have labeled Heat Shield more to allow it to lead, you would have to use a SAS or similar controls to keep the probe stack steady. Unless it is so heavy to that end that there is almost zero mass in the upper parts. Now I LIKE your ideas for a return capsule... However it feels big then. Any thoughts to reviving your return capsule mod to use newer parts/process/rules? I could see that updated with the features of the later stock science grabber part (that way to large cubical rectangle thingie that I keep burying in my Gemini and Mercury/stock Mk1 capsules.) Then that set of parts would become useful again (currently you have to stuff experiments in those parts and they are hard to use/do.) *EDIT ADDED AFTER THIS POINT* If those parts were smaller (Parachute, Probecore/science grabber, heat shield and custom decoupler) you could honestly make some of the early KH film sats with only a few additional parts....

I would add that at KSP scale LDC is anything from the in game LDC at 3.125.... all the way up to about a 4.5m diameter and down to a 2.5m diameter... depending on proposal and more importantly THE YEAR! It is like what others have said about Saturn variants, the M-1 engine and now LDC. Who knows! It wasn't built and the name was used multiple times so Cobalt decided what HE wanted it to be and made a great space rocket! I would add that the UA-1208 was in the previous two or three dev builds as well. It appears that the UA-1208 and SMRU-3 are about the same length... but I haven't downloaded the latest dev yet.

Didn't you mean J-2L??? Nothing to see here... please move along. The warnings will disapear when the old Titan Parts are depreciated out of BDB and they (the warnings) cause ZERO issues that have been reported.

Thanks for the link. It looks like I was right to edit my post as IIRC!!! So the TEST engine was 250K lb/force. I am in the middle of reading FRA-MiG-29/35 that released last week or I would binge read this tonight. I wonder why most websites credit the J-2T as being 200k lb/force instead of the 250K used in this. Oh well Like I said I will read this later this weekend. I might be-able to glean a couple other gems out of it. BTW @CobaltWolf I didn't say it earlier but I think your J-2Ts are spot on for shape and overall look. They are very faithful to many of the 3 view drawings of the J-2T I have or have seen. All of this new generation of Engines are great to amazing.

EDIT IIRC EDIT Hydrolox can burn anywhere from orange to blue... At the "ideal" ratio it is blue-ish with yellow flecks... At a Fuel rich level it is quite Orange-yellow... The "J-2T" that was tested is not the J-2T that was envisioned. In fact it was called J-2 Toroidal and not J-2T at all! Rather it was a small(er) scale Torodial on a J-2 pump system (not a J-2S!) It ran fuel rich (I think) which is why you see the orange-yellow color in its exhaust in the one photo I have seen. So yes, not a complete J-2T.... But also YES a Franken-engine cobbled to test the IDEA of J-2T. I found several "articles" a few years ago on the J-2T family in the interweb newsgroups. The Test engine was good for ~50k pounds of force. The initial J-2T was to be 200K lb/force and then unrated, first to 250k lb/force and finally to ~400k lb/force. The 400k lb/force would use the J-2S turbopump system at full capacity and require a larger Toroidal nozzle. The 200/250k versions would use J-2S at a restricted/reduced performance IIRC the 400k would not work on the S-II stage without a completely new thrust structure (to allow room for the larger diameter Torroidal. These articles were lacking in any sort of documentation and I trust them as far as I can throw myself (and since I am still re-habbing my arm I can NOT currently do a hand stand TO throw myself!) I share them because some of the basics in this information DOES match what we see on various "reputable" tech/history websites covering the J-2 family.

ERrr I was thinking KSP scale to real life... *oooff 4.28 meters x 7.72 meters tall or about 15 feet x 25 feet (width / height) so just under HALF the diameter of an S-1C for a CORRECTED size comparison....

While all of this is true, the actual physical parts made and tested were for a Vacuum rated engine.... a little smaller than the diameter of the S-IC/S-II stages.

I am not certain if it is the J-2X (the original paper only design, not the Carbon Carbon fake-make) or the latter J-2S. I know by the time J-2T and J-2L were ..... err sorry J-2 Toroidal aerospike and J-2-2200... err sorry again RS-2200 Linear Aerospike... were prototyped the Start tank was gone. However the J-2 Toroidal were not re-startable and the RS-2200 Linear were re-startable only via a tank on the X-30 they were to be mounted to. To be fare while both the J-2 Toroidal an the RS-2200 were test fired they never proceeded to flight hardware... so IDK if re-start would have been switched to Solid starters like the J-2X/S Any chance that an extension-less version of that will be a Sea Level replacement then? It is about the right bell height without the extension FWIW while the coloring is the same as before the detail on these J-2s and the F-1 is leaps and bounds above the leaps and bounds the E-1 was over the original F-1.

To quote an old TV show SHINY!

Original Titan 3X proposal! AWESOME! Thanks for the heads-up. I would love for an updated tech tree that ignores stock but fixes BDB + Tantarus + reDIRECT + maybe even SSTU. each and all of the mods mentioned above are top tier work and each has way too many parts to keep on the stock tech tree. Besides the Stock Tech Tree is broken for stock as well (to many interconnects between branches.) I have played with CTT, I have played with ETT and I have played with Yong's Tree as well as many of the Probes before Crew trees. each of those are setup mostly to mimic stock and highlight stock as the focus of what drives the tree. Which to me is a big no-no. I just wish I had the time and the knowledge/skills to implement my ideas. *Jumps off soapbox* Err sorry for that.... Oh for the file on the Titan 3x