Pappystein

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

So love the new SRMs... Just did a Titan 23C-6 Gemini Flyby of the Mun with massive science grab.... However the 1.875m decoupler for the SRMs is not unlocked until the level AFTER the UA120x family. Is this as desired? I attempted to create a pull request for it in the Github... Moving the node for the Decoupler from AdvancedConstruction to advRocketry

err... when did you start making British Strategic Bombers? That sure looks like a Vulcan B.2 to me climbing vertical... That is awesome that you even made a UA1208 for Saturn-MB + many of the early conceptual Shuttles that lead to STS!

Ok here is a question then. Can we get a measurement of the dome in the stand alone shroud so the E-1 fits correctly? You can see in Zorg's awesome pic-set that the E-1 ring is floating in the open. A node switch on the E-1 allowing the ring to move further up would be nice (not necessary as I can do a part move but I just thought it might be a good idea. FTR: I was just trying to find a way to use the Vertical (Saturn) instead of the horizontal (Atlas) LR101s with Titan 1 to keep it in the confines of the silo..... not that any mod except The old SS-18/Depner mod by Themorris had/have a silo! Wow, I haven't used BARIS in.... I think literary years. I think my full Gemini Titan I flight is going to use the 1.5m SM that has long been my favorite "non-standard" Gemini part.... No Boat tail on my space capsule! And therefor no CTS-100 + Atlas V/Vulcan for me! Out of Curiosity is the Mercury LES you have onboard a modified one?

If I might ask, Is there a chance of a small engine mount for the E-1 with space for two vertical LR91s (not the side attach ones)? I have flown 4x E-1 powered Titan Is in my new career I just started and every option I have used (not including using tweakscale) has not felt "right" or "Good" The Titan I engine mount has a clipping issue with the E-1 due to the Dome's flat area being smaller than the E-1 engine ring.... And the Saturn 1E engine mount looks a bit... err WRONG scaled down to 1.875m BTW the Titan I E-1 seems to be a great launcher for Enhanced Mercury (Mercury capsule with a small single place add on module inline.) I am about to attemt a Gemini with the 1.5m Service module on a Standard Titan I-E-1

So what did you use for an E-1 Engine mount and where are your LR-101s for Roll control (*am I blind or did you not use them) Any-case why do you keep beating me to these post?!?!?! Seriously, yet again some nice Photoflash.

Better yet you could make a Module manager file to @PART add the missing component to the parts in question. Then you could share it. Who knows it might end up in the BDB extras folder if enough people use it. Adapters! YES! Nose cone. IDK. Does KSP's physics accept those as valid since 1.3.1? I thought you would need something like OldSchoolFairings to do that. EDIT. @CobaltWolf That Nose cone, in solid form + Tweakscale could be a good nosecone from 0.5m up to about 2.5m Diameter (above that and the actual tip would look too blunt in my opinion.) I think 3.125/3.75 and beyond need a more Pointed nosecone similar to but not the same as the Space Shuttle EFT. Not a request, just food for thought.

I get that. And I see your point as well. However, that image above is from a Galileo 2.5x scale campaign that I was funds WAY TO TIGHT on. I was earning science reasonably well, but since I was unlocking the parts one at a time via paying for them....... I was basically broke the entire game. And I never made it to any of the "fun" planets in GPP due to that issue. Nice. That had to be a "Fun" Landing.

Those are 6x J79-GE-5B (I think they were to be a derivative of the B-58 Hustler's J79s esp by pod design) engines on a fictitious rocket... Or possibly a Titan LDC proposal. However an enlarged version was at one point proposed for Saturn V's S-1C First stage. IIRC it was 10 or 12x J93-GE-7 engines. The engines, that in prototype form powered the XB-70 Valkyrie. The important thing to note is the J93 is a much more shock/temperature resistant enlarged version of the J79 designed to operate at cruise around 2000 statue miles per hour to 2000 Nautical miles per hour.... The extra shock/heating protection is what make the entire concept viable (the J79 proposal would not get anywhere because the J79 would likely melt when fired.,) I have flown lot's of controled returns on various 1st stages in game using LGG's Typically I ended up building the first stage in the Aircraft hanger before moving it to the VAB and assembling the rest of the rocket on top of it. Like the pictures above, LARGE vertical surfaces with large YAW component and BIG AIRBRAKES were requirements. In order to fly such a brick you need a lot of thrust. But on landing that means your flight envelope is so Narrow and FAST that you will have controlability issues. Oh if you put too big of wing on it, forget about it flying a correct rocket program. While there are mods out there that allow for folding wings, they tend to be too small or not enough control/lift capability. Canards, Dihidral and big Fins to the rescue for optimal return capability. Here is an Atlas V recoverable I did several years ago. It was very hard to fly with the 4x small tail fins. If I could have done it differently I would have had 3x (2x on wing) tails. Problem was this was for a cluster launcher and I only had enough room for what little tails I had. And yes those are NON standard AIRBRAKES. I have 8x different Airbrakes I use in game from Micro up to MEGA... Those are 2x Mega brakes. In this one the Rocket is the main power (it's fuel tank is shut off at launch to prevent fuel starvation. I unfortunately do not seem have any pictures of the 2 Jet version of this (with a bigger wing.) that I flew. That is powered by two of the B9 DF-30 engines (from the MiG-31 Foxhound.) I have never gone back to this style of recoverable stage so I have never tried with the new Atlas V models... I am sure if there was a larger wing set... something in between the Shuttle wing above and either the Flat Bottom Shuttle wing or the Airliner wings I would be using this kind of recovery still today. Since P-Wings is so hit and miss I don't fly this way anymore.... Parachutes and Recovery Control are my reusable creations now

I didn't catch this question earlier. In theory Titan I and Atlas-D should have comparable launch performance. Actual orbital performance will differ because of the different mass and engines used. Titan I and Atlas D carried the exact same payload in USAF service.... the Mk-IV RV.... and supposedly had the same maximum range ignoring guidance types. EDIT Upon checking the released numbers on Designation-Systems.net, I would say the Titan-I has a higher efficiency vs Atlas. Max range (as an ICBM) for Titan I is listed as essentially the same as for Atlas D/E.*** HOWEVER Atlas is listed as heavier (all historical references not showcasing numbers state Atlas should be lighter due to the Balloon tanks.) The conclusion is either A) the Publicly released info is incorrect for one or both of the rockets or 2, Atlas was designed with too much fuel. Honestly I would say 2 is the issue because Atlas when engine upgrades and without stretched tanks seems to be able to do so much more. but that is a complete guess on my part. I am copying both data plaques from designation-systems.net below. HGM-25A LGM-25C Length 29.9 m (98 ft) 31.4 m (103 ft) Diameter 1st stage: 3.05 m (10 ft) 2nd stage: 2.44 m (8 ft) 3.05 m (10 ft) Weight 99700 kg (220000 lb) 149500 kg (330000 lb) Speed 24100 km/h (15000 mph) Ceiling 800+ km (500+ miles) 960 km (600 miles) Range 10100 km (6300 miles) 15000 km (9300 miles) Propulsion 1st stage: 2x Aerojet LR87-AJ-1; 666 kN (150000 lb) each 2nd stage: Aerojet LR91-AJ-1; 356 kN (80000 lb) 1st stage: 2x Aerojet LR87-AJ-5; 955 kN (215000 lb) each 2nd stage: Aerojet LR91-AJ-5; 444 kN (100000 lb) CGM-16D CGM-16E/HGM-16F Length 22.9 m (75 ft) 25.1 m (82 ft 6 in) Diameter 3.05 m (10 ft) Weight 118000 kg (260000 lb) Speed 25000 km/h (15500 mph) Ceiling 800 km (500 miles) Range 10200 km (5500 nm) Propulsion Booster: 2x Rocketdyne XLR89-NA-5; 666 kN (150000 lb) each Sustainer: Rocketdyne XLR105-NA-5; 267 kN (60000 lb) Vernier: 2x Rocketdyne LR101-NA-7; 4.5 kN (1000 lb) each Booster: 2x Rocketdyne LR89-NA-5; 733 kN (165000 lb) each Sustainer: Rocketdyne LR105-NA-5; 253 kN (57000 lb) Vernier: 2x Rocketdyne LR101-NA-7; 4.5 kN (1000 lb) each ***And for the record the Titan I entry has an incorrect math error. If the range in km is correct it should be 5454 nautical miles or approximately 6300 Statute miles.... Conversely the Atlas is listed in km / Nautical Miles. Welcome to the "Fun" of deciphering data for anything dealing with multiple forms of measurements that use the same name!

Also the Titan I was launched ABOVE ground from an UNDER GROUND Silo. The big structure around the engine on the Titan I (the Skirt) is actually A structural Stiffener/Elevator hoist. Here is a general outline of the launch procedures (it may not be exactly in the correct order.) 1. Receive launch order (thankfully they were only issued for test launches!) 2) Open Silo. 3) Begin Fueling RP-1 tanks. 4) during RP-1 fueling, raise the Titan I missile out of the silo 4a) RP-1 Fueling was only ~20% complete when Titan was fully raised. This allowed lighter Elevator structures as well as easier to drain the tanks. 5) on confirmation of the Launch order fill the Liquid Oxygen tanks (ABOVE GROUND) 6) Launch. The Skirt helped stabilize the Titan Rocket during the ascent up the Silo shaft on the Elevator and MAY have provided hold backs for fuel lines (the wording on what I read on this was... less than clear. I am uncertain if it was the skirt or another structure on the elevator itself (also called a skirt in the document I read.) Also reading between the lines it sounds like, at least at one point, the Silo integrated Titan Is would have been physically attached to the Elevator and would "broken free" by explosive bolts. The Skirt provides an ARMOR factor to the LR87 engines in that case (the bolts all had skirt metal between them and the LR87s that is to say.)