Beyond Apollo: AAP challenge

[Drunkrobot]

This challenge is so vague (no scoring system, for example), that it might be better suited somewhere else.

Apollo-style rockets: To anyone learning how to play the game, building and flying them is the final exam. Passing means acquiring a skill base that allows you to do almost anything. As someone who passed the test, let me give you some advice-as you go to the VAB for your next big project, remember that you know have a good rocket in the craft files. Why not use it?

NASA was asking that same question before Neil ever got his foot anywhere near the Moon. They had spent billions of dollars, and millions of years of man-hours, on getting equipment capable of bringing human explorers to the Moon. Why should they throw it away as soon as the first mission planted the flag and collected the rocks?

That is where the "AAP" in the thread title comes from: The "Apollo Applications Program". It's goal was to find ways of expanding the capabilities of Apollo-Saturn while spending the least amount of money. It meant multiple launches per mission, heavier, better equipment and longer stays on the Moon.

Basically, NASA puts it up to 11.

Many ideas were discussed-Turning a LEM into a surface Habitat, to be sent ahead of the astronauts and used for stays on the Moon measured in weeks, rather than days.

Work it harder, make it better, do it faster, makes us stronger. More than ever hour after, our work is never over.

Dedicating another Saturn V launch to bring a heavier, longer range rover.

MOLAB! Order now, and get your very own Atmosphere^TM absolutely free!

There was even plans for a manned flyby of Venus. And, of course, those whacko plans for a long-term habitat/research station in LEO...

"I have the overriding merit of actually existing."

Of course, you all know what happened-the later Moon missions got cancelled, funding was cut short. Congress was thinking Apollo was a huge waste of time and money.

Do bear in mind, it was Congress that said that.

Fortunately, Kerbals are a more clear-thinking and logical race of beings than Congressmen. This is where the challenge comes in.

You start by giving a basic profile of your Apollo-style rocket: some stats, a few pictures, if you uploaded it to the forums before, then you can provide a link to it if you want. Then, you sprinkle a little bit of MOAR onto it.

MOAR: noun. This picture. (This won't make any sense, because dictionaries don't have pictures.)

Using the fewest possible alterations, do something...interesting, with your Apollo rocket. Try to give it a spin that would make sense in the real world. What can you really do with a few Saturn Vs, or an expanded form of Saturn V. (The real AAP didn't really give much study to new models of the Saturn family, but in the interest of acquiring fun, I'll allow it. You can strap some boosters on, or stretch a stage if you wish, just try to keep the alternations low.)

Switching out the payload (CSM/LEM/S-IVB upper stage) with something else (a space station, for example) is allowed. You're still reusing the majority of the rocket.

There isn't really a scoring system, competition really comes down to "who can perform the impressive feat". I would see this being a discussion-based thread, to share ideas on what to do.

Good luck!

EDIT: 1000 points for stock crafts! jk do whatever you wish, stock or mods!

Edited August 13, 2013 by Drunkrobot

[theflyingfish]

So, basically, how many different ways can you use an orange tank + 4 LV-T30's as the first stage.

Edited August 13, 2013 by theflyingfish

[DisarmingBaton5]

5 LV-T30s, actually. Or 5 Orange Tank + 5 Grey Tank + 5 Mainsail.

To the OP: I enjoyed that picture of the Saturn Vs. Now I want it to happen to SLS!

[Drunkrobot]

I suppose, if I had to use only one sentence, that would be the idea.

The reason I put up the thread is because there are so many Apollo style rockets on here. I wouldn't say I'm bored to death with them, I just love to see when somebody gives an interesting spin on the basic formula.

The first two examples that come to mind is:

Temstar's MOLAB: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/24775-0-19-1-MOLAB-Heavy-Manned-Munar-Rover?highlight=temstar+molab

And Wayfare's "Skyshack": http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/37237-0-20-2-Munshine-IB-Skyshack-Station-and-Crew-Transfer-Vehicle?highlight=wayfare

[Camelotking524]

[Drunkrobot]

Is this a teaser at what you've done for the challenge, or your standard Apollo vehicle? If it is the latter, then you may wish to add some shots of the payload.

[Camelotking524]

Both! I have a Eve flyby planned but I'm just waiting on the launch window.

Payload for Apollo/Eve

[The Jedi Master]

I've got a kinda Apollo-ish rocket lying around, and I'm considering restarting my save, so I might try this!

[Camelotking524]

Also, I remember that I launched the living module for my Mun base on my Saturn V mockup with strapped on SRBs.

[Drunkrobot]

I've made my mind up-I'm building a Munbase out of AAP-inspired bits and pieces.

Wish me luck, I have work to do!

[The Destroyer]

I've done things similar to this, with a Saturn V first stage.

But, it could work with a full one...

I'm off to work!

[sgt_flyer]

well my old stock skylab still works in 0.21 (just tested it ) (warning, 1005 parts for the whole saturn V and skylab ))

it's even easier to dock the ATM with the new SAS system

Javascript is disabled. View full album

(link to the old thread in my sig ) - almost no modifications on my saturn V first and second stage for the skylab version - and i replaced the S-IVB by something which had the same shape (as skylab is, basically a modified S-IVB )

the Saturn 1-b in the same post is still able to send an Apollo CSM to LKO to service it

Edited August 14, 2013 by sgt_flyer

[Death Engineering]

Apollo Applications Program - Exploring the "Big Gemini" and LORL

This post explores the aspects of the Apollo Applications Program (AAP) that incorporate the "Big Gemini" and the Large Orbiting Research Laboratory (LORL). Based on the Jim Chamberlin design of the original two-crew Gemini spacecraft, the Big G would use an evolution of the Gemini avionics and combined designs of both Gemini and Apollo spacecraft. The idea was to bring large crews and supplies to an orbiting space station. Design plans included crews from 6 to 12 in a single launch and was the first craft designed to have a reusable crew cabin.

Big Gemini with S IV-B

The Big G was not intended for Lunar missions which meant it did not require any more delta-v than would be required to deorbit from the space station. Since it did not require a Saturn 5 to launch, the Big G could rely on other proven low-cost lifters like the S1-B or a boosted Titan III. In this exploration, the Saturn S1-B lifter is the primary launcher for Big G missions.

The idea of the LORL was to place a large crew aboard a space station that was designed to support multiple docking ports and would be re-crewed with "taxi" style launches using the Big G. The initial LORL missions would have been launched with two Saturn 5 launches and assembled in orbit. All other resupply missions would have been performed with the S1-B, leaving the remaining supply of Saturn 5 rockets for Lunar missions. However, since the LORL required two Saturn 5 rockets to be assembled, how could NASA launch the LORL without taking away any Saturn 5's for the Lunar program?

Large Orbiting Research Laboratory Docked with Two Big G's

What if Apollo 8 and Apollo 9 were done with S1-B rockets?

Although a very powerful and reliable rocket, the Saturn 5 was also the most expensive, by far. In comparison, the cheap and plentiful Saturn S1-B used existing hardware dating back as far as the Mercury program and shared its second stage with the Saturn 5's third stage, enhancing economy.

Apollo 9 Docked with "Spider"'s Ascent Stage

Apollo 8 was a Lunar orbit test of the Apollo command module (CM). It also proved the S IV-B stage was capable of a Trans-Lunar Injection with a crewed Apollo CM. Apollo 9 was a test of the Lunar Module (LM) and was performed in low Earth orbit. In order for Apollo 8 and Apollo 9 to have been accomplished with the S1-B rocket, several parameters would require adjustment:

1. Apollo 8 would use the "Apollo A" configuration of the CM. This lighter version of the CM could be used as there was no requirement to support docking and the CM engine didn't need to carry the extra delta-v to carry around the LM and perform rendezvous maneuvers.
   
2. Apollo 9 would be conducted in two launches. The first would launch the LM and the second would carry the CM and the crew. Since rendezvous and docking with the LM was a key part of this mission, a two-launch profile fit the mission requirements perfectly.
   

Apollo 9 LM Launch

If Apollo 8 and Apollo 9 were launched with Saturn S1-B's, the LORL could have been a reality in the mid 70's, with continuous crews of 10-20 people arriving and departing on Big Gemini spacecraft. This could have been accomplished in parallel to the Apollo Lunar program, without using any hardware from the Lunar program, and would have created the first permanent outpost in space.

Apollo 8 "Earthrise"

The Big G and the LORL

The version of the Big Gemini explored here crews a maximum of 7 and is capable of multiple recovery options including abort procedures and supporting land or water landings. Although not available in KSP, the Big G would have used a parasail and would have navigated pinpoint landings. The Big G used a unique method of docking by having its docking port on what is traditionally the bottom of the spacecraft instead of the top.

Once the mission involving docking is complete, the docking port is jettisoned revealing the deorbit engine. After the deorbit burn is complete and reentry is imminent, the retro package and avionics package can be jettisoned for landing.

Big Gemini Jettisons the Retro Package

The type of LORL explored here is the zero-g type, although rotating designs to simulate gravity were also explored. This LORL is equipped with an Apollo Telescope Mount and has two open docking ports when the telescope is installed. It was launched in two parts: the first was the crew cabin and was sent up with a Big G as the CM aboard a Saturn 5. The second launch carried the avionics, communications array, solar panel and a station-keeping engine and was launched under an Apollo CM.

Once the LORL was assembled in low orbit, the Apollo CM engine was used to boost the LORL to a stationary orbit, where it would remain. The Apollo Telescope Mount was moved to its active position once in its final orbit and two Big G CM's were docked to the LORL. Continuous crew missions could be sustained indefinitely for the lifespan of the LORL.

Completed LORL in Synchronous Orbit

Conclusion

The Big G and the LORL would have been a relatively low cost approach to a permanent space station. The crew capacity of some Big G's were huge. Some mock-ups of the the Big G show seating for 20 crew, often with everyone having their own ejection seat mechanism. The LORL was equally spacious and could potentially accommodate 20 crew of its own.

Smaller, cheaper space station designs were being pitched that had shorter life spans, but could be launched on a single modified Saturn 5. And, since the smaller space stations couldn't support the massive crews that the Big G could support, there was no reason to pursue the Big G.

At a time when funding was already being cut, the Big G and the LORL were history by 1970.

More info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Applications_Program

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bigemini.htm

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apolloa.htm

Big Gemini

Javascript is disabled. View full album

LORL

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Apollo 8 and Apollo 9 Alternate Missions

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Javster]

well my old stock skylab still works in 0.21 (just tested it ) (warning, 1005 parts for the whole saturn v and skylab ))

it's even easier to dock the atm with the new sas system

Javascript is disabled. View full album

(link to the old thread in my sig ) - almost no modifications on my saturn v first and second stage for the skylab version - and i replaced the s-ivb by something which had the same shape (as skylab is, basically a modified s-ivb )

the saturn 1-b in the same post is still able to send an apollo csm to lko to service it

amazing!!!!

[Death Engineering]

Apollo Applications Program - Skylab A/B and McDonnell Douglas' Phase B 12-Man Space Station

This entry for the APP challenge looks at two derivatives of NASA's plans for space stations: Skylab B and McDonnell Douglas' Phase B 12-Man Space Station. The Skylab A mission was to be the first of two Skylab missions. The second would have seen only minor improvements but would have included more capacity for long-term duration missions.

Phase B Space Station with Experiment Modules

Still serviced by the Apollo CM/SM, a second Skylab could have incorporated the advanced Apollo Telescope Mount (ATM) based on an ascent stage from a Lunar Module. This ATM/LM was capable of carrying more science experiments and could carry more consumables to the station to enhance duration.

Skylab B with enhanced ATM/LM

The second space station, the McDonnell Douglas Phase B, was a design for a 12-man station. Launched on a single Saturn 5, the Phase B was designed for research in microgravity and featured docking ports for interchangable experiment modules. This space station would be parked in high orbit and could also be used for crew training and a port of call for trans-lunar missions. Experiment modules could be installed and replaced as needed, expanding the versatility of the station.

Manned Orbiting Research Laboratory Concept Drawing

An evolution of the Phase B station explored here is a design that never went beyond the sketchpad. Hardware specifics on the three-module station are lacking, but by adding a docking and logistics module to a Phase B launch could render an expandable space station taking only three Saturn 5 launches to construct.

Phase B MORL Triple-Station with Big Gemini return vehicle

Skylab A with view of ATM

Skylab A and B

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Phase B Space Station

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Next AAP Entry:

Early Manned Planetary-Interplanetary Roundtrip Expeditions (EMPIRE) - Mars (Duna) Flyby

Edited September 24, 2013 by Death Engineering

[Death Engineering]

Using Apollo Hardware to Explore Mars

Before ever landing on the Moon, the Marshall Space Flight Center already had visions of exploring Mars and Venus. The mission requirements would be to use as much Apollo hardware as possible, which meant that a landing was out of the question. However, a manned flyby was definitely within the reach of the current technology.

Mars Flyby Lab/Crew Quarters Launching on S5

The plan would be to use an Apollo CSM for primary flight avionics and control as well as for the final approach to Earth and landing. However, engineers were concerned about keeping the CSM protected from micrometeorites during the flight to Mars and back, especially since the flight plan would take the crew past Mars' orbit and into the asteroid belt.

Refueling the SII-B OLV

The plan to keep the CSM protected during the flight was to keep it enclosed inside a pressurized hangar moored atop the lab/crew quarters. The CSM would remain there controlling flight activities until it was time to land. The crew would be able to move between the lab/crew quarters and the CSM through a tunnel between the hangar and the lab. As the spacecraft approached Earth, the crew would move to the CSM, undock from the flyby craft and burn to Earth orbit prior to landing.

As the flyby approached Mars, the crew would deploy probes and landers to further explore Mars. Since this was to be the first serious exploration of Mars, there were a lot of unknowns regarding the Martian atmosphere and surface density. The probes and landers on this trip would largely be designed to gather information on the planet for planning of future missions.

Opening the hangar to reveal the Apollo CSM

In order to get the rather large, pressurized hangar and spacious lab/crew quarters out to Mars, a modified S-IIB was envisioned, called the S-IIB OLV (Orbital Launch Vehicle). Two of the J2 engines would be removed, leaving three J2's and a large docking port would be mounted on top to mate with the flyby craft already in orbit. An Apollo Instrument Unit would provide navigation and control to get the S-IIB OLV into orbit after which the crew on the flyby craft would use the Rendezvous and Docking engines to meet up with and dock to the OLV.

Once assembled in orbit, modified S-IIB "tankers" would be launched to refuel the OLV. The MSFC planned for up to four tanker launches to refuel the OLV prior to Mars planetary injection. Once the spacecraft was assembled and refueled, a crew for the flyby mission would board the spacecraft to begin the trip.

Mars Flyby Craft Ready for Departure

Throughout the trip, the crew would perform zero g science and maintain the fleet of probes and automated landers. After the final course correction, the probes would separate from the flyby craft and make their own small course corrections for their Mars encounter. As well as pure science, the probes would help engineers design Mars-specific spacecraft for future missions by testing aerobraking and reentry shielding.

Proposed Flight Profile for Mars Flyby

In this exploration, only two tanker launches were required to top up the OLV and even then there was way more delta-v available than was required for this mission. Unfortunately, the sample return lander probe and one of the rovers were lost. The sample return probe was missing struts that were present in the VAB but for some reason were not included in the launch vehicle. Once the chutes opened, the craft tore itself apart and crashed on the surface. The rover problem was a design issue that prevented the rover from getting power once the batteries were drained. With the second rover, care was taken to keep the largely obscured solar panels facing Kerbol until it was time to land. Both of the satellites were launched and used aerobraking to get into Duna orbits.

This type of mission was clearly designed with "worst case scenario" in mind and highlighted using hardware already available. However, this manned mission to Mars could have been accomplished by late 1975 and would have gathered valuable data on Mars as well as a pass through the asteroid field.

Apollo CSM in the hangar

Apollo-based Mars Flyby Mission

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Coming in the next AAP entry:

Early Manned Planetary-Interplanetary Roundtrip Expeditions (EMPIRE) - Venus (Eve) Flyby

References:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/03/apollotovenusandmars/

Edited September 25, 2013 by Death Engineering

[John FX]

Nice thread, I may adapt my lander to become a base and put some solid rocket boosters on my Apollo replica. At work now but I have most of next week free.

[Death Engineering]

Early Manned Planetary-Interplanetary Roundtrip Expeditions (EMPIRE) - Venus (Eve) Flyby

Bellcomm Inc., a division of AT&T, developed a single-launch mission profile for a Venus flyby in the mid 1960's. The mission would have been launched on a single Saturn 5 for the 1973 launch window. The Apollo CSM would provide the avionics and control for the mission while the crew would occupy a lab/crew quarters mounted on the top of the SIV-B. Instead of dropping the SIV-B as in typical Moon missions, the SIV-B would be converted into a wet-workshop.

Instead of a lunar lander, which would not be needed for a flyby mission, Bellcomm envisioned an Environmental Support Module (ESM). This module would provide the life support and communication needed for the mission and would contain the materials needed to convert the SIV-B into the wet-workshop once the fuel had been expended.

Apollo CSM docked to the Environmental Support Module (ESM)

In order to save weight and reduce consumables needed, the power for the mission would come from solar cells attached to the SIV-B and would be sustained with battery reserves. Other modifications would be to use two LM engines on the CSM instead of the standard Service Propulsion System (SPS) and modifications to communication systems to support the longer duration flight.

Shortly before the Venus encounter, probes would be released from the craft to perform orbital science or possibly even landers to scope out the atmosphere and diverse cloud layers.

Probe in orbit around Eve

Due to Venus' strong gravity, only a small burn is required at periapsis to assist the slingshot around Venus to push the craft's orbit into an encounter with Earth. In this exploration, the flyby altitude had to be quite a bit higher than would be done with a Venus flyby due to Eve's massive gravity. Also, since there isn't really a good analog for a two engine cluster that would be similar to a single Poodle, only a single engine is installed on the Apollo CSM. And since there is no way to refurbish a spent fuel tank into a wet workshop, the Kerbals will just have to make due with a single Hitchhiker pod.

They didn't seem to mind.

Apollo-style Eve Flyby

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Coming in the next AAP entry...

Apollo Applications Program - Munar Applications

Edited September 26, 2013 by Death Engineering

[von Ziegendorf]

Hey, I just found that thread Actually I was building rockets for AAP since April I made just a few mission but another ships are being prepared

What I made is Eve flyby http://imgur.com/a/huvX1#0

And Duna flyby http://imgur.com/a/Mwdty#0

Ship is modded of course I edited some parts from previous versions of NovaPunch, and generated maaaany special tanks The rocket is as perfect copy of Saturn V as I could design it Here is the test flight to the Mun http://imgur.com/a/TCDBT#0

Now I replaced lander with storage container and let's fly

PS: There is possibility of Triple Flyby

[borisperrons]

Very nice idea you had! I love the "what if" space programs... Expect some modest submission from me in the near future

I'va always been impressed by the Skylab: it's sheer size is still astonishing today, if you think it was launched with only one rocket. But there's one thing I never understood about the design: the Apollo Telescope Mount is hanging from the side, but obviously during launch it could not have been there. So, who put it in that place? A robotic arm? The astronauts on the first mission? A wizard did it???

Seriously, I never found a source about this particular aspect of the space station.

[Whirligig Girl]

Here's my Stock Skylab and Kerbal V

http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/stock-kerbal-v-stock-craft-style-spacelab-and-kerbal-ib/

http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/stock-kerbal-v-stock-craft-style-mun-rocket/

The spaceport links have forum thread links in them.

[HansBlix]

Count me in! I'll start with the basic Saturn V/apollo analogue that will be used as the basis:

Standard Apollo/Saturn V:

Launch Weight: 491,570kg

Launch Part Count: 251

Launch Delta V: Around 7000, although Engineer may be off somewhat due to some funky designs to get it to work.

1st Stage: 5 - Bearcat Engines.

2nd Stage: 5 - J2-X Rockets encased in a 5M procedural fairing

3rd Stage: 1 - J2-X Rocket, enough Delta V to do Munar Intercept burn and circularization. Engines encased in a 3.75m-5M procedural fairing

CM: 3 man CM as close as possible to real dimensions plus has escape tower and CM cover.

LM: 2 stage just like the real thing, and includes 2 mun buggy's (couldn't balance a single one out) but only room for 1 kerbal. Fits in a 3.75m tapered to 2.5M procedural fairing.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Next Gen Saturn/Apollo Vehicle:

Don't have the stats for it, will add later, but it gets to 150k orbit with about 7000 deltaV left. The lifter components are the same as the Saturn V just with extra fuel and the addition of boosters. The command module payload is an orion analogy, and uses the same lander as the original version. Note that these are test launches at this stage, still lots of tweaking.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Beyond this, will start putting together other designs using the same sub-assemblies with different payloads and see what i can achieve, will keep u all updated.

Hans

[Moar Boosters]

I'm currently trying to fly to Tylo, Apollo style.

First mission was unsucessful due to me forgetting to put landing legs on the lander (and the lander itself needs a little extra dv to account for my crappy piloting skills. I'll bring the guys home and this mission will effectively be my "apollo 10" run.

The rocket I'm using is slightly bigger than most apollo style rockets, but It's all pancake staging, although it does have some drop-tanks on the interplanetary stage. Mostly everything else is authentic. No Nervas. It does have a LEM but it's untested on this version as it's never exploded on the launchpad.

It has a slightly different mission profile once it reaches Tylo. It doesn't have a single command module which is left in orbit. The remains of the interplanetary stage helps deorbit the lander, and a smaller command module remains in orbit to take everyone home if I manage to pull off the landing.

[HansBlix]

So i finally got my act together and decided to spend the day getting a Skylab replica up and going (got distracted by building a Russian N-1 rocket for a bit there http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55542-N-1-Russian-Space-Race%21). Uses the same parts from my original Apollo rocket (as seen previously in the thread). Stage 1 and 2 from the original rocket with stage 3 minus the engine and with the docking attachment on top to form the lab. Put the telescope up front, and once in orbit, undocked it and redocked it to one of the side attachment points. Unfortunately there are not yet any electric motors in game to achieve this like real life, so best i could do . Regards the question previously they mounted it in front of the skylab, then used an electric motor and tracks to wheel it round to it's final position.

Second step was getting a command module up there. Created a Saturn IB replica with just 2 stages (3rd stage from Saturn V as second stage and new smaller first stage). Couldn't quite get the engines right for the first stage as the only options that where 1.25m and that would have looked anatomically correct just didn't have enough grunt to get the thing into the air.

Took 2 attempts to get the lab looking and performing the way I wanted, other than that it was a pretty easy build. First time for me that... it... just... worked

Anyway, enough blabbering, see below shots.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Enjoy,

Hans

[Death Engineering]

Nice! Have some rep