DeadJohn Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 4 hours ago, GoldForest said: There's no documentation on how they would launch Saturn Shuttle, afaik. The way I usually do it is the RS-25s are air-started 10 to 20 seconds before the F-1s cutout, like the Titan did with its SRBs and Main Engine. I just wasn't paying attention and missed T-10 and started then after F-1 cutout, lol. The F-1s are more than powerful enough to lift the Orbiter and whatever payload it may have, and the RS-25s would be putting unnecessary torque on the entire craft, because keep in mind, being so high up and angled, the RS-25s would want to pitch the whole craft "Downard" (Relative to the shuttle's orientation), and while the RS-25s would still gimbal to counteract this, being off center they would still produce a "Downard" pitch which the F-1s would then gimbal to counter act themselves, leaving little room for them to gimbal to steer the whole craft on the gravity turn. At least, that's how I see it. And the pour interstage would get crushed probably with two forces pinching it on one side. Also, @Pappystein You got anything in your vault about the Saturn Shuttle? Your version (and many other versions) of Saturn Shuttle could be less expensive by reducing the engine count on all stages. Maybe 4x F-1 and 2x RS-25. Liftoff by lighting all engines. Some of the torque issues you mentioned could be handled by putting less angle on the RS-25s. The shuttle external tank would be partially drained by the time the Saturn stage detaches, so the reduced angle would still provide enough control and 2 engines enough TWR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldForest Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 (edited) 3 hours ago, DeadJohn said: Your version (and many other versions) of Saturn Shuttle could be less expensive by reducing the engine count on all stages. Maybe 4x F-1 and 2x RS-25. Liftoff by lighting all engines. Some of the torque issues you mentioned could be handled by putting less angle on the RS-25s. The shuttle external tank would be partially drained by the time the Saturn stage detaches, so the reduced angle would still provide enough control and 2 engines enough TWR. The Rs-25s go pretty much straight when gimbaling to max range, so angling them straight isn't a solution. Also, they have to angle into the tank for the cot to go through the com. Otherwise it would torque towards the tank. Idk if 4 F-1s could do it. 5, yes. 4? Idk if it would have the thrust. Think the best solution is to air start the RS-25s right before stage sep. No torque for the F-1s to counter, plus it would allow Shuttle to carry heavier loads or lighter loads higher. Edited July 9 by GoldForest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pappystein Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 On 7/1/2024 at 10:57 PM, Taco Salad said: Oh it's stable Oh yeah baby it's time. 40% of the time spent making the lander, 40% spent making it a BIT more stable, 19% making it STOP exploding on launch and 1% spent making the rest of it. Sadly I had to sacrifice 3/4 of the surface sampling probes due to part count but I DID IT, It's GONNA work. Any Chance you still have these images and can upload them to something more permanent? I just came looking for your Nuke Shuttle pictures and the links are all dead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pappystein Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 (edited) 9 hours ago, GoldForest said: There's no documentation on how they would launch Saturn Shuttle, afaik. The way I usually do it is the RS-25s are air-started 10 to 20 seconds before the F-1s cutout, like the Titan did with its SRBs and Main Engine. I just wasn't paying attention and missed T-10 and started then after F-1 cutout, lol. The F-1s are more than powerful enough to lift the Orbiter and whatever payload it may have, and the RS-25s would be putting unnecessary torque on the entire craft, because keep in mind, being so high up and angled, the RS-25s would want to pitch the whole craft "Downard" (Relative to the shuttle's orientation), and while the RS-25s would still gimbal to counteract this, being off center they would still produce a "Downard" pitch which the F-1s would then gimbal to counter act themselves, leaving little room for them to gimbal to steer the whole craft on the gravity turn. At least, that's how I see it. And the pour interstage would get crushed probably with two forces pinching it on one side. Also, @Pappystein You got anything in your vault about the Saturn Shuttle? Not too much, I was mostly focused on finding info on what I thought was the UA-156x Turns out, looking in shuttle documents for UA-156 turned out to be RIGHT because what I thought was UA-156 was instead Shuttle SRM! the Saturn version would have a different section zero (the nozzle) RE Engine ignition on Shuttle, The SSME is not well suited for Altitude ignition, as I recall, so Fuel transfer and ignite at min throttle (80% IIRC) You would have to stretch the mounting tank obviously Err, @GoldForest Followup, I didn't take a close look at the photos. The documents I have don't use the Shuttle tank as you do. So that changes the dynamic quite a bit. 11 hours ago, GoldForest said: @Rodger An update on my node situation. It is indeed a bug with the B9 part switching. The node is defaulted to the "Compact" location for some reason. Switching to Compact and then back to 1.875 fixes the node's location to the correct one. Might be an issue with the part config? Anyway, "Booster time." - Koby Mcguire Kerman Saturn Shuttle as many of you probably guessed. Also, I finally decided to access Blackrack's patreon and get his volumetric clouds. I also got Deferred Rendering and Blackrack's TUFX profile. My screenshots should look a little better now. Full album: Imgur: The magic of the Internet Missed it by THAT much! Edited July 9 by Pappystein Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pappystein Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 (edited) 8 hours ago, shakuvendell said: Wow. Seeing more benefits than just load time, which was under 10 minutes for the first time in half a decade. It fixed the issue too, which is awesome. So, was it the extended texture format support, or what? I'm curious. I have ProcessLasso on my computer for another Unity game that has problems loading (modded Battletech). On a whim last week I added KSP to it, setting it so it wouldn't use CORE 0 (which is the Core Windows wants EXPLORER et all to run on since Windows isn't a multi-core OS still today), and my loading process was cut by a quarter on a fresh load with MMCache being rebuilt. It loaded at almost the same speed ALT-TABed out as it did previously Exclusively IN KSP. Both were a huge performance buff on load. I do not have KSPCF installed... so I am adding that as well ERR: Ignore that last statement. This was my first EVER successful CKAN install that didn't immediately implode and I forgot that CKAN suggested that with EVERY mod I selected until I selected it! Edited July 9 by Pappystein Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeadJohn Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 (edited) 5 hours ago, GoldForest said: Idk if 4 F-1s could do it. 5, yes. 4? Idk if it would have the thrust. Feel free to ignore me, I'm just min-maxing and your rockets look great. The RS-25s are already hanging there like radial engines and have good sea level ISP so it seems like a waste to not run them. If 5 F-1s are enough without the RS-25s running, 4 F-1s plus 2 or 3 RS-25s would give close to the same total thrust and you'll be lifting less mass. You can likely decrease fuel and get good TWR with fewer engines, yet retain the same DV and payload capacity. I don't know how NASA planned to launch Saturn Shuttle. Maybe running the RS-25s risked damaging the Saturn. On the other hand, taking off with the RS-25s running might offer an abort if the Saturn stalled. Edited July 9 by DeadJohn deleted extra newlines, y'all already have to do enough scrolling in this voluminous thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodger Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 (edited) 15 hours ago, Rodger said: Also just so people know, dev branch currently has some new merged titan tank parts that are waiting on model updates, and so are currently buggy. No cause for panic, it’s a known issue. Fixed on dev now, shouldn't error and be fully usable now. Edited July 10 by Rodger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taco Salad Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 6 hours ago, Pappystein said: Any Chance you still have these images and can upload them to something more permanent? I just came looking for your Nuke Shuttle pictures and the links are all dead Fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine here's an imgur album link. I should stop being lazy and start using image hosting so my stuff doesn't have an expiration date. https://imgur.com/a/Z9lvcrE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldForest Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 7 hours ago, DeadJohn said: Feel free to ignore me, I'm just min-maxing and your rockets look great. The RS-25s are already hanging there like radial engines and have good sea level ISP so it seems like a waste to not run them. If 5 F-1s are enough without the RS-25s running, 4 F-1s plus 2 or 3 RS-25s would give close to the same total thrust and you'll be lifting less mass. You can likely decrease fuel and get good TWR with fewer engines, yet retain the same DV and payload capacity. I don't know how NASA planned to launch Saturn Shuttle. Maybe running the RS-25s risked damaging the Saturn. On the other hand, taking off with the RS-25s running might offer an abort if the Saturn stalled. No, you're good! And thanks! I'm just voicing my opinion. This is true, you would get the same TWR with the RS-25s running, but they'd still have that torque issue. Only way around that is to put like a Shuttle C pod on the other side of the external tank that jettisons with the S-IC. The orbiter and pod can both have 2 RS-25 engines. There's also another problem with ground starting the RS-25s on Saturn Shuttle that I just thought of. How do you ROFI them? I mean, obviously you can have arms with the ROFIs that swing out of the way, but that would put the shuttle and crew safety in peril if one of them should get stuck. The S-IC's enlarged fins would strike it on lift off if the ROFI arm got stuck. I guess you could just stick them on the shuttle, have them on jettisonable pods. Yeah. I've seen 2 designs for Saturn Shuttle. One where the S-IC just has larger fins to help with the aerodynamic load the Shuttle would cause, and one where the S-IC was a flyback booster. With the latter, the tail/vertical stabilizer would be in the direct line of fire of the RS-25s. The fins on the former would get heating once the plumes expanded outward. On top of that, when the RS-25s gimballed to correct for the torque effect of the shuttle, the plume would eventually expand to impinge on the S-IC wall. Without some thermal protection system like the F-4 Phantom has on its tail, I see the exhaust melting the wall of the Saturn V and causing a LOVC event in the worst-case scenario. If they did add a thermal protection system to the S-IC, it would have to cover the entire side of the S-IC that the shuttle is on, or at minimum, the area that would experience aluminum melting temperatures. That would add weight, a LOT of weight. Which would reduce payload capability and TWR to boot. I honestly see no way to launch Saturn V except with RS-25s modified to be Air-started at T-10. A heat shield might still be required, but it would only have to last those 10 seconds, so it wouldn't have to be big or even cover most of the rocket, only the places that would experience the most heating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldForest Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 (edited) @Rodger Same Node bug that happened to the LR91 engine happens to the tank. Titan II tank starts with Titan III's (Or IV's) node. And the Titan Interstage starts with no node at the top, even though it's defaulted to Titan II and not the Short. But the LR91 node bug is fixed. Btw, thanks for all your hard work. I don't think you get thanked enough. You hold BDB together IMO. I mean, if Cobalt and Zorg had to deal with all these bugs, the updates would be longer than they already are lol. Edit: And I don't know if this is a known bug or not, I'm assuming you know about it from the commits. But the Titan IV lower tank becomes unclickable when you switch to it. Seems like the collision box is missing. Edit 2: Also also, Idk if this is a typo or not, but the 1206F decoupler was called 1206E. Was that a typo or a joke? Because F comes after E? If it is a Typo, might I suggest NOT fixing it? For the memes Spoiler Edited July 10 by GoldForest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodger Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 (edited) Haha, the decoupler was a typo, but I think I'd prefer it to be correct And yeah looks like a disabled collider on the tank due to shared names across subtypes, fixed now. Thanks for checking everything! As for the nodes, I suspect it's due to having TS, as I don't see it on my end at all, and I don't have TS installed. I will try with it installed next. - edit, it was indeed TS. It's probably fixable for the interstage, but with the tanks the default subtype will change with tech upgrades, which means there won't be a single set of node positions that will be default at all times. I can at least set the tank to titan 2 for now though Edited July 10 by Rodger more details on nodes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldForest Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Rodger said: Haha, the decoupler was a typo, but I think I'd prefer it to be correct And yeah looks like a disabled collider on the tank due to shared names across subtypes, fixed now. Thanks for checking everything! As for the nodes, I suspect it's due to having TS, as I don't see it on my end at all, and I don't have TS installed. I will try with it installed next. Hmmm, I didn't consider Tweakscale being the culprit, though I guess it would be the first suspect lol. I have TweakScaleRescaled btw. And you're welcome! Edited July 10 by GoldForest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldForest Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 (edited) Just a regular shuttle launch. Nothing to see here. Liftoff! What you mean there's something strange? Between the SRBs on the butt of the external tank? Oh that? That's just the Titan Booster. SRB sep and roll to upright to prepare for Titan Sep. Upright, ready for Titan Booster sep when it comes. Titan Booster sep. And for those wonder, yes, it does actually provide a good amount of TWR. At least 0.1 at launch and slowly increases as altitude increases. Also, that's with the shuttle empty. Craft based off this image: Edited July 10 by GoldForest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blufor878 Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 1 hour ago, GoldForest said: Just a regular shuttle launch. Nothing to see here. Liftoff! What you mean there's something strange? Between the SRBs on the butt of the external tank? Oh that? That's just the Titan Booster. SRB sep and roll to upright to prepare for Titan Sep. Upright, ready for Titan Booster sep when it comes. Titan Booster sep. And for those wonder, yes, it does actually provide a good amount of TWR. At least 0.1 at launch and slowly increases as altitude increases. Also, that's with the shuttle empty. Craft based off this image: Also pretty sure it has Buran's windows... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldForest Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Blufor878 said: Also pretty sure it has Buran's windows... Nope, still STS. Just has the Enterprise paint scheme, which has no "eye shadow" around the windows which her young sisters do. Buran also has the "Eye shadow". Not from this launch, but the Saturn Shuttle launch, but I used the same shuttle for both launches, just changed the lifting stages. Edited July 10 by GoldForest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pappystein Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 14 hours ago, Taco Salad said: Fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine here's an imgur album link. I should stop being lazy and start using image hosting so my stuff doesn't have an expiration date. https://imgur.com/a/Z9lvcrE Thank you kindly! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pappystein Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 (edited) 5 hours ago, GoldForest said: Just a regular shuttle launch. Nothing to see here. Liftoff! What you mean there's something strange? Between the SRBs on the butt of the external tank? Oh that? That's just the Titan Booster. SRB sep and roll to upright to prepare for Titan Sep. Upright, ready for Titan Booster sep when it comes. Titan Booster sep. And for those wonder, yes, it does actually provide a good amount of TWR. At least 0.1 at launch and slowly increases as altitude increases. Also, that's with the shuttle empty. Craft based off this image: Awesome! How did it fly? I *THINK* that it is supposed to separate before SRMs... I will double check that latter today and post back. 4 hours ago, GoldForest said: Nope, still STS. Just has the Enterprise paint scheme, which has no "eye shadow" around the windows which her young sisters do. Buran also has the "Eye shadow". Not from this launch, but the Saturn Shuttle launch, but I used the same shuttle for both launches, just changed the lifting stages. Slightly different perspective, and the ISO was set wrong for this photo in the sun at Edwards (so no detail in the white on the nose due to sun glare) but windows look Legit to me. Oh I found a better picture of the USS Enterprise flying over New York, Much more Detail! Spoiler Sorry when looking for Pictures of the Bridge of the USS Enterprise OV, This came up and I laughed... So I thought I would share. Have a great day everyone! Edited July 10 by Pappystein Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldForest Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 19 minutes ago, Pappystein said: Awesome! How did it fly? I *THINK* that it is supposed to separate before SRMs... I will double check that latter today and post back. Slightly different perspective, and the ISO was set wrong for this photo in the sun at Edwards (so no detail in the white on the nose due to sun glare) but windows look Legit to me. She flew fine. I think the titan tanks are supposed to be smaller than the titan I tanks, that's why she lasted until after SRB sep, if you are right. But thinking about it, if it was before, I can see them possibly hitting the SRBs amd causing damage. Enough to threaten the mission. Also, wow, that's almost a 1 to 1 shot lol. I can't believe how close they look. I mean, it's not exact and they're facing different directions, but still, wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pappystein Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 1 minute ago, GoldForest said: She flew fine. I think the titan tanks are supposed to be smaller than the titan I tanks, that's why she lasted until after SRB sep, if you are right. But thinking about it, if it was before, I can see them possibly hitting the SRBs amd causing damage. Enough to threaten the mission. Also, wow, that's almost a 1 to 1 shot lol. I can't believe how close they look. I mean, it's not exact and they're facing different directions, but still, wow. Yep there are lots of photos of Enterprise in the 70s I could have shared that had more detail. But that was the closest to perspective I could find. When NASA and then NASM both "restored" Enterprise, they progressively changed the windows on the cockpit which leads to them looking wrong when compared to either SOCKS or Cormorant. I think the only mod that really gets the windows wrong vs as flown Enterprise is the one that started with Buran and made a generic set of "Space Shuttle" parts, and then abandoned the mod. IDR is either the mod's name, or its creator now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blufor878 Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 4 hours ago, GoldForest said: Nope, still STS. Just has the Enterprise paint scheme, which has no "eye shadow" around the windows which her young sisters do. Buran also has the "Eye shadow". Not from this launch, but the Saturn Shuttle launch, but I used the same shuttle for both launches, just changed the lifting stages. Oh ok, you're right. From a distance I thought it was Buran. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobaltWolf Posted July 10 Author Share Posted July 10 7 hours ago, GoldForest said: Btw, thanks for all your hard work. I don't think you get thanked enough. You hold BDB together IMO. I mean, if Cobalt and Zorg had to deal with all these bugs, the updates would be longer than they already are lol. You think we'd fix bugs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorg Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 Starting on the OV1s OV1-1 OV1-10 Not sure if I'll do any more. Perhaps 17,18 or 19 sometime. But will do the pods next. Side mount Atlas Retained Structure, the nose mounted "dual ARS" and the regular fairing that can carry two or three. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveyJ576 Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 2 hours ago, Zorg said: Starting on the OV1s OV1-1 OV1-10 Not sure if I'll do any more. Perhaps 17,18 or 19 sometime. But will do the pods next. Side mount Atlas Retained Structure, the nose mounted "dual ARS" and the regular fairing that can carry two or three. Nice work as always. I have never seen a good representation of what the OV’s looked like. The whole program was an interesting early way of orbiting what were essentially microsats. Looking forward to flying them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pappystein Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 8 hours ago, Zorg said: Hammerhead comes to Atlas! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taco Salad Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 9 hours ago, Zorg said: Starting on the OV1s OV1-1 OV1-10 Not sure if I'll do any more. Perhaps 17,18 or 19 sometime. But will do the pods next. Side mount Atlas Retained Structure, the nose mounted "dual ARS" and the regular fairing that can carry two or three. Wow, I am surprised I've NEVER seen these satellites till now. They look like toys instead of real spacecraft. The models are looking great so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.