[1.12.5] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.14.0 "металл" 30/Sep/2024)

[Pappystein]

Modular Saturn:  The MLV INT-17, INT-18, and INT-19 Saturn II

Spoiler

 

So this quick document is based primarily on a work that @CobaltWolf found and linked to me recently knowing my love of the Saturn II concept.  

Sandford, J., & Fraser, G. (1967). Adaptation of the Saturn S-II for Ground-Launch Stage. SAE Transactions, 75, 841-854. Retrieved March 17, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/44564891

 

Look ma!  I cited a document correctly

http://www.astronautix.com/data/satvint.pdf

then I didn’t.

Beyond this document most of my research is on places like Wikipedia and Astronautix.   Or to a historian a 3^rd tier “public” source.  That means they are at best stinking un-reliable if you were un-aware.

It should be noted that the primary source above PREDATES the final MLV studies which the INT-x numbers come from and there are snippets of Saturn II information throughout several of the NASA held MLV documents.   Therefor while a reduced expansion bell for a “Surface Ignited J-2” is mentioned in this study, no details are provided.   Neither are details on the 7 J-2 powered version or the HG-3 powered versions. 

 

The concept:  

There is a significant mass to orbit gap between the Saturn IB as built and the Saturn V.   While other proposals have looked at updating the Saturn IB (See MLV INT-12, -14, and -15 for examples,) no real work on such an upgrade was considered as the S-IB stage is over heavy and requires more time than comparable volume stages to manufacture.    So, the concept is to build a new Rocket using off the shelf parts whenever possible, modified parts if changes need to be made, but minimal NEW parts.   

 

The basic concept in detail:   Take the Saturn S-II mid-stage combined with the Saturn S-IVB upper stage and make them a viable rocket.    The 5 J-2 engines on the S-II stage do not generate enough thrust at sea level to lift the stack with more than 20,000lb of payload.  This is lower than the Saturn IB.   Then lets start looking for ways to boost the thrust at launch and get bigger payloads.   We have 4 SRMs to choose from for this.  The 66” (so about the size of the Agena) Minutman first stage motor, and the UA-120x family from the Chemical Systems Division of United Aircraft Corporation (the US one not the post Soviet Russian one!)    The Motors investigated from the UA-120x family are the UA-1204, the UA-1205 and the UA-1207.   The UA-1206 did not exist at the time the Saturn II concept was investigated so it is not included.

What was investigated:   Using the UA-1204, 5 and 7 in a 2x, or 4x SRMs.   While many sources talk about 5x UA-1205s this is from either a different study or someone’s extrapolation not under contract.   Using the Minuteman 1^st stage motor in combinations of 4 up to 12 total SRMs.   And what combination of SRMs, J-2S (vacuum bell only) and SRMs would provide the largest payload, or the cheapest launch for X payload.  

 

Saturn II with Minuteman SRMs for thrust augmentation:

Early in the concept definition phase it was determined it would be much safer to carry all empty Minuteman stages attached to the S-IC to S-II interstage skirt.   The skirt was retained for improved low altitude drag reduction vs the open J-2 boat tail of the S-II Stage.   This helped to keep exhaust gasses from any SRMs attached to the S-II stage away from the J-2 engines and reduced the chances of the J-2 engines receiving damage in the case of an SRM failure that was not catastrophic enough to result in a range destruction.   

The Minuteman engines would be fired in groups of 2, 4, 6 or 12 depending on payload needs.   The Minuteman enhanced Saturn II rocket was tied for best cost to 100 mile orbit with the S-II + 4x UA1204.  This is in the 50,000 to 70,000 lbs to LEO (100 Mile) orbit.   In every case the Saturn S-II stage is lit on the ground with any combination of SRMs ignited at launch to provide a 1.25 TWR at clamp release.

60,000lbs is about the most cost effective point with the Minuteman SRMs.   Using approximately 85% max fuel in the S-II stage and 90% fuel in the S-IVB stage, a 8 Minuteman boost arrangement in a 6 + 2 burn profile would be cost positive vs other Minuteman options for 60,000 lbs.    For smaller and lighter payloads this was a preferred option, given less mass than 60,000 required an more extensive setup with extra Minuteman SRMs.

50,000lbs would utilize 2/3rds max fuel for the S-II stage, 95% max fuel for the S-IVB stage and 12 Minutemans in a 6 + 4 + 2 Burn profile.  While more Minuteman SRMs were ignited to get less payload into space, the fuel costs for the Hydrolox outweighed the cost of purchasing extra Minuteman SRMs during the time of this study.  

70,000lbs to space was about the upper end of this launch system and is less economical than some of the 120” SRM combinations.   The S-II first stage is fully fueled.  The S-IVB stage is at 95 to 97% max fuel.  12 SRMs in a 8 + 4 Burn profile are utilized for thrust augmentation.   The maximum payload that the Saturn II rocket could attain with the Minuteman SRMs to that 100 Mile orbit was 75,000lbs

In the Final MLV papers, the combinations of the Minuteman SRM, the S-II stage and the S-IVB stage would be called INT-19.

 

Saturn II with 120” UA-1204 SRMs:

Only good for use at the lower end of the payload spectrum envisioned for the Saturn II.  The UA-1204s were only studied using them in a 4x arrangement.   With 50% S-II fuel and 100% S-IVB fuel, the Saturn II with UA-1204s would be good to get 43,000 to 51,000lbs to the 100nm orbit.    The burn profile was significantly different than that of the Minuteman SRM equipped INT-19 above.   Rather the UA-1204s would be ignited on the pad.   A large air-dam Heat shield would be installed below the J-2S engines in this profile that would be jettisoned at 1^st stage engine ignition.  Like the Titan rockets previously carrying the UA-1205s the Saturn II in this configuration would ignite the J-2S engines about 7 seconds before SRM burn out.      While this profile is only good for low mass items to space, it is the most cost-effective version of the Saturn II for launching sub 50,000lb payloads into space.  

 

Saturn II UA-1205 configurations:

Carrying approximately 90% the max fuel in the S-II stage and 90% in the S-IVB stage, equipped with 4x UA-1205s, the Saturn II was good for 114,000lbs.  This used an alternative ignition of the 2^nd stage at the 70 second mark, rather than the 97 second mark.    Yes we will get to lighter payloads in a minute.  

Without the S-IVB, a 4x UA-1205 launched Saturn II was good for 86,000lbs with a fully loaded S-II stage.  This was a 70 second S-II ignition point.

 With 2x UA-1205 + a ground lit S-II stage with full fuel and a S-IVB stage with 90% max fuel the payload was good for 89,300lbs.   The Acceleration is higher in this profile than in the above 86,000lb payload.

There is no easy way to use the UA-1205 SRMs to get a payload of less than 85,000lbs effectively.

 

Saturn II UA-1207 configurations:

2x UA-1207 + 60% S-II fuel and a full S-IVB would get 60,500lbs to space.

Same configuration except change the S-II stage fuel to 75% fuel and lighting the S-II stage on the ground increases payload capability to 78,000lbs

4x UA-1207, Full S-II and Full S-IVB is good for 146,500lbs to 100 Mile orbit.  Second stage is ignited after 70 seconds of flight, or almost 3/4ths the way through the 104 second SRM burn.

4x UA-1207, full S-II and no S-IVB is good for 97,000lbs.   Again burn of the S-II stage was started at 70 seconds of flight.

All of these Saturn II with the UTC UA-120x SRMs were classified under the Saturn INT-18 proposal in the Final NAA/Douglas reports to NASA. 

 

The White Whale:  The HG-3 x7 Equipped Saturn II INT-17.    The HG-3 engine is a paper program.  As such no proposal could be taken seriously when including the HG-3 in specifications.   However several documents refer to an “Advanced” engine during the MLV process.  The Stage manufacturers were proposing hypothetical stages based on the progression of engine technology.   This means the INT-17 is also just a paper study and offered as a comparison of what IMPROVED tech could gain.   INT-17 with 7 HG-3 engines is quoted as 92,000lbs to 100 Mile orbit.   This is in a 2 stage configuration with the 7 HG-3s ignited on the ground with zero SRMs. 

 

A quick and dirty run-through on the Saturn II.   Figure if we are talking about Saturn and HG-3 let us get some Hype going

 

[derega16]

1 hour ago, Pappystein said:

I think you are referring to the Martin Nova that had 8 F-1s in the 2nd stage?   They were standard F-1s as far as the specs are concerned.  No change to the bell.   But since this was in the early days when Dr Rao's work was not well known... who knows.

Well, I meant modular Nova with 1 or 2 F-1 second stage

http://www.astronautix.com/n/nova8lmod.html

 

[Zorg]

7 hours ago, Pappystein said:

Personal opinion.   Make the XLR-129 for anyone who wants to make Shuttle Saturn...   As an alternative engine for an alternative launcher   

A compelling justification

7 hours ago, Pappystein said:

There are drawings of the RS-2100,

Hmm interesting idea, no promises but can take a look at it though. Is there anything better than this?

 

[SpaceFace545]

4 hours ago, Zorg said:

A compelling justification

Hmm interesting idea, no promises but can take a look at it though. Is there anything better than this?

 

Is that an M1?

[Starhelperdude]

1 minute ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Is that an M1?

it is supposed to be a RS-2100, though it is a bad drawing

[Pappystein]

5 hours ago, Zorg said:

A compelling justification

Hmm interesting idea, no promises but can take a look at it though. Is there anything better than this?

 

I went looking last night... Hit everything except the NTRS servers because we all know how useful they are now days!   I will look further today when I get home from work.  

PS I love work days when you get up in the morning... and realize all your morning jobs are canceled and you can go back to sleep

 

But for what it is worth what little description I could find outside of Astronautix sounds like it is exactly what the HG-3 was supposed to be like....    Remember it is the same generation as the RS-68 even if it is based on J-2S / HG3 technology.   I feel it would use a similar structure/cooling as the RS-68 or SSME.   With that drawing sadly you can't tell

 

9 hours ago, derega16 said:

Well, I meant modular Nova with 1 or 2 F-1 second stage

http://www.astronautix.com/n/nova8lmod.html

 

Sorry forgot about that one.   Those building block tanks are all exactly the same, meaning exactly the Same F-1 exactly the same fuel load....    That was one of the final group of Nova proposals IIRC, before Nova got REAL BIG.

Edited March 17, 2021 by Pappystein

[Spaceman.Spiff]

Woah I thought the RS 2100 was Fuel rich staged combustion like the RS25, I did not know it was FFSC!!!

I need it!!

[Pappystein]

1 hour ago, Starhelperdude said:

it is supposed to be a RS-2100, though it is a bad drawing

It is a bad drawing but if you rotate both of the Turbo pumps 90 degrees you have the exact same layout as on a J-2S as far as interconnecting to the Rocket is concerned.  My Concern is how is the bell constructed.   The only GOOD references I have found for it is a document stating it was part of the Venture Star proposals prior to being down-selected for the now mature J-2L/XRS-2200 for the 2/3rds scale X-33.   And for what it is worth the full blown Venture Star would have used RS-2200s which are longer and a little thicker than the XRS-2200 and do not rely on J-2S technology (therefor won't work on Saturn.)   But the Prototype XRS-2200s are fair game

[Pappystein]

Found this on NTRS re the RS-2100.  

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19990104359

 

Needless to say:

HATE

NEW

NTRS

INTERFACE

AND

PERMISSIONS!

Of course it is because AAIA was used as a method of communication to the industry....

https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.1997-3350

 

 

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19960013899

Pg 63 and 64 for background info

http://spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=20387

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20070311011237/http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/14oct_betterrocket.htm?list804693

Above origional 2005 NASA article on concept and below a giant version of the "bad drawing"

https://web.archive.org/web/20051117044426/http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/images/content/99122main_IPD-engine-rendering.jpg

 

[zakkpaz]

so i've redone the neptunecamera .cfg's for the new transforms if you want them. the Gemini cams are upside down btw.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/17uyqo1lnKOLOU69vOLRIQAPOHOBcJtPz/view?usp=sharing

Also I was trying to add to the descriptions and noticed something odd, the additional text doesn't show up for some of the parts even when written identically to that parts that do

[Zorg]

17 minutes ago, zakkpaz said:

so i've redone the neptunecamera .cfg's for the new transforms if you want them. the Gemini cams are upside down btw.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/17uyqo1lnKOLOU69vOLRIQAPOHOBcJtPz/view?usp=sharing

Also I was trying to add to the descriptions and noticed something odd, the additional text doesn't show up for some of the parts even when written identically to that parts that do

Thanks   The appended text wont show up if you use realnames as its overwritten. I'll adjust the patches when I commit these. (appended text needs to run in a separate patch at :AFTER[zzzBlueDog_DB] )

[Zorg]

On 3/15/2021 at 1:07 PM, zakkpaz said:

I think I've run into a similar problem with the Castor IVA upgrade, however this time adding the old part back to the mod file doesn't fix it.

 

also love the Saturn V can't wait to fly it

I did a test with a new career both with and without entry cost turned on and the node appears fine?

[Zorg]

11 hours ago, Pappystein said:

Pg 63 and 64 for background info

http://spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=20387

I didn't quite realise the RS2100 and the Integrated Powerhead Demonstrator were the one and the same.

[zakkpaz]

2 hours ago, Zorg said:

I did a test with a new career both with and without entry cost turned on and the node appears fine?

it looks like deleting parts from the Jupiter folder is causing the upgrade to disappear.

it's odd because if you remove whole folder the upgrade reappears.

[Pappystein]

2 hours ago, zakkpaz said:

it looks like deleting parts from the Jupiter folder is causing the upgrade to disappear.

it's odd because if you remove whole folder the upgrade reappears.

But... but... but... but... you will be a little sorry when my next Agena article update comes out....  It is heavily dependent on that Jupiter folder!

 

5 hours ago, Zorg said:

I didn't quite realise the RS2100 and the Integrated Powerhead Demonstrator were the one and the same.

Honestly neither did I.   But it turns out the Integrated Powerhead Demonstrator was at-least partially intended for the full scale RS-2200 (the not J-2S version)  

The J-2S derived XRS-2200 is exactly that.  J-2S derived and a direct descendant of the J-2L.  I am sorry the "Linear Aerospike Demonstrator" circa 1972.     J-2L is a designated bounced around in two documents I can remember reading, the rest call it the linear Aerospike Demonstrator.  Just like the J-2T is the "Aerospike Demonstrator"   I think in the early 1970s NAA-Rockwell Rocketdyne was trying to get away from direct Saturn Association to free up additional funds

 

[Neebel]

Sorry if this was asked before, but do you plan on updating BDB to 1.11 in the near future?

 

[Starhelperdude]

6 minutes ago, Neebel said:

Sorry if this was asked before, but do you plan on updating BDB to 1.11 in the near future?

 

yes

[Guest]

Sooo, @rogerwang86's reDIRECT addons require this mod specifically for the RS-68 and RL-10 engine, so which parts folder would those engines be located in ? I would like to delete all of the parts folders that I don't need.  (no offense @CobaltWolf btw , still a great mod)

[Zorg]

11 minutes ago, SpaceX_Boi said:

Sooo, @rogerwang86's reDIRECT addons require this mod specifically for the RS-68 and RL-10 engine, so which parts folder would those engines be located in ? I would like to delete all of the parts folders that I don't need.  (no offense @CobaltWolf btw , still a great mod)

I've actually suggested Roger distribute a full copy of my RS68 model (and I think cobalt would be ok for his RL10 as well?) so he doesnt require his users to download a 700 part mod as a dependency .

RL10 is in the Centaur folder and RS68 is in Delta.

4 hours ago, zakkpaz said:

it looks like deleting parts from the Jupiter folder is causing the upgrade to disappear.

it's odd because if you remove whole folder the upgrade reappears.

Strange, I'll check for any cross interactions.

4 hours ago, zakkpaz said:

it looks like deleting parts from the Jupiter folder is causing the upgrade to disappear.

it's odd because if you remove whole folder the upgrade reappears.

Im really not seeing how that could be, gone through all the configs. By any chance did you delete the shared folder? (shouldnt affect it but wondering if one broken upgrade could affect others).

[CobaltWolf]

34 minutes ago, SpaceX_Boi said:

Sooo, @rogerwang86's reDIRECT addons require this mod specifically for the RS-68 and RL-10 engine, so which parts folder would those engines be located in ? I would like to delete all of the parts folders that I don't need.  (no offense @CobaltWolf btw , still a great mod)

19 minutes ago, Zorg said:

I've actually suggested Roger distribute a full copy of my RS68 model (and I think cobalt would be ok for his RL10 as well?) so he doesnt require his users to download a 700 part mod as a dependency .

RL10 is in the Centaur folder and RS68 is in Delta.

Oh, yeah, @rogerwang86 totally go ahead and redistribute anything you need for this stuff. PM me+Zorg if you have questions. I know the RL-10 itself is on its own set of textures and could be redistributed without any other parts - I'm sure the RS-68 is the same Zorg?

[zakkpaz]

5 hours ago, Zorg said:

Im really not seeing how that could be, gone through all the configs. By any chance did you delete the shared folder? (shouldnt affect it but wondering if one broken upgrade could affect others).

I reinstalled the everything this morning  it's definitely something in that folder, think it has something to do with the 45K Engine.

removing its.cfg and .mu and leaving everything else breaks the Castor IVA upgrade.

Edited March 18, 2021 by zakkpaz

[SpaceFace545]

So I am having an issue with a few upper stage tanks with integrated rcs and monprop. I hav stock alike hyperbolas downloaded so when I switch my Delta P and K tanks to hypergolic fuel mixture it doesn't include any monopropellant

[Spaceman.Spiff]

6 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

So I am having an issue with a few upper stage tanks with integrated rcs and monprop. I hav stock alike hyperbolas downloaded so when I switch my Delta P and K tanks to hypergolic fuel mixture it doesn't include any monopropellant

That is probably on @Clamp-o-Tron’s end. 
There might not be configs for that yet/they might be broken. 

[Zorg]

1 hour ago, zakkpaz said:

I reinstalled the everything this morning  it's definitely something in that folder, think it has something to do with the 45K Engine.

removing its.cfg and .mu and leaving everything else breaks the Castor IVA upgrade.

Did you leave the upgrade file within the Jupiter folder as well? Since the 45k needs that. Although once again I dont see any connection between that and the other upgrade. 

21 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

So I am having an issue with a few upper stage tanks with integrated rcs and monprop. I hav stock alike hyperbolas downloaded so when I switch my Delta P and K tanks to hypergolic fuel mixture it doesn't include any monopropellant

Thats not something we officially support so you would need to resolve that with the author of that mod. BDB has its own fuel switcher and it is designed to work in harmony with CryoTanks and to get out of the way if RealFuels is used.

With any other fuel switcher mods the configs would need to find a way to work with bdb stuff.

[golkaidakhaana]

10 hours ago, Neebel said:

Sorry if this was asked before, but do you plan on updating BDB to 1.11 in the near future?

 

The experimental branch already works in 1.11 , so no need to