Updates To Do List 2024

[friznit]

• Atlas OV-1; Atlas "K"
• Atlas V
• Titan Guides (B9 Switches)
• Centaur (B9 Switches)
• IUS (Redo image)
• LDC (B9 Switches)
• Little Joe
• X-15
• Shelab
• Renovated Command Module Lab
• SII Wetlab
• Kepler
• Syncom
• TACSAT/TACOMSAT
• Mariner 8/9
• SDLV: ACK, Oranges
• ISS Nauka Module

KVV Dist 25; Resize 20%; PSketch 1/2

[Rodg88]

I'm removing the decoupler from the redstone nosecone, so Juno 1 will need a .3125m decoupler between the 11x sergeant part and the nosecone. Due to issues with DockRotate.

[JacobB094]

Can I suggest the recently added "advanced" .craft files be used in the update? There will be more, notably Titan (next in queue), however right now there's a pretty comprehensive set of Thor variants, including a user guide, MLP pads, and relatively accurate CD-based liveries. I'm not versed in the GitHub markdown enough to make wiki pages, and I don't do Kerbalized part names, anyway (guides use real names), but otherwise, this can be a good resource to ensure the pages are accurate (at least as far as BDB is). There's also comprehensive writeup of every speculative design I could build.

[friznit]

I'll happily make reference to them it in the appropriate places but the Advanced craft files and pdf guide go into far more depth than I ever intend to on a simple lego-build guide for BDB parts. As I mention in the intro, this is not meant to be a comprehensive history of every rocket ever conceived and it's deliberately kept as simple possible for the sake of accessibility (and my sanity tbf!). The pdf is a great resource for those who want to know more though!

[JacobB094]

Well, with Thor, the I guess one thing to update would be the livery. The next big release, though, will likely include the Saturn guide, and there's a lot wrong in that one, especially with the C series. Astronautix and Wikipedia are poor sources for this, and some of the designs don't fly well, if at all (Saturn B-1 in particular, the real B-1 did not use a clustered second stage). It will have real history (as much as I could untangle it, things were moving fast during that period) and dimensions for all of Saturn family, plus several Nova variants which very much can be made in BDB.

[friznit]

All the Saturn guides are sourced from original documentation where possible (e.g. Report DSP-TM-13-59 SATURN SYSTEM STUDY II for the B Series) with dimensions converted to the closest KSP size available in BDB. Of course it's EXTREMELY likely there are mistakes or multiple variations on a theme which I've probably simplified massively, because as you can no doubt tell from your own research, many of these rockets were never more than paper concepts and quite often you'll find a study that cites an older paper but gets it wrong - NASA guys were fallible too after all! That said, If you do find some compelling evidence for something that is wildly incorrect please point it out with a reference to the source and I'll update it.

On the other hand, I'm very tempted just to remove the minefield of wildly speculative and conceptual stuff from the wiki and refer to some very detailed upcoming pdf guides for the enthusiasts ;)

[JacobB094]

As it happens, SATURN SYSTEM STUDY II doesn't seem to include the Titan Cluster, but there's a really nice family of various interesting stacks that I'll be adding to the guide, so thanks for that. Incidentally, even that one mentions the need for a 2Mlbf booster for some of the configurations, They proposed either uprating the H-1s to 250lbf H-2s or replacing the central four with an F-1 engine, which is the approach I'll be using in the guide (I'll make the case to the team for an additional boattail variant to that end, right now it's fiddly to make). Saturn Development Plan, from 1959, specifies the same for the C-3. Also, LR-89-5 for the upper stage is not mentioned anywhere outside Astronautix, and it'd be a poor choice due to being ground lit. It seems an air lit H-1 derivative was the favorite, we also have a good supply of vac-optimized LR-87s in BDB, which are mentioned as a second option.

It would also be worth it to feature a Nova. My favorite configuration is the clustered version from the time the C-3 was a straight 6.6m stack - it's fairly straightforward to build and performs well enough. Just to annoy Cobalt, I'll also include something that's pretty much a C-8 style Nova, but with a cluster of four AJ-260s replacing the first stage (it'll probably be fiddly to build, though). I'll have another, with 7x156in SRBs if that ever gets added. 8xF-1, 8xJ-2 one very much is a Nova proposal, BTW, and the only difference between that and the C-8 was, at one point, only some stage separation hardware. All can be found in "Large Launch Vehicle System For a Lunar Landing Program", from 9.10.1961, along with a late C-3 and early C-4. The solids were 240in back then, but each was worth two F-1s in thrust, just like AJ-160, and KSP diameters work out.

My proposition for the wiki is:
A-1, A-2, B-1 as described in Saturn Dev Plan. If my request for a 3.75m to 3.75m Saturn I decoupler goes through, there's compelling case for C-1 to C-3 vehicles from that one, as well, these use S-IV diameter stages. It's a neat lineup from before they started messing with it. The 6.6m configuration for C-2 and C-3, along with the associated Novas would do well as representative for later evolutions of the family, the 8m C-3 currently there is somewhat underpowered. The others, I think, are mostly fine, but given that there's no easy option in KSP to see a part's length, describing the tanks in terms of actual parts would make it easier to figure out the builds.

[JacobB094]

To add to the above, this is the Nova I was talking about:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=58046.0;attach=2156169;image
Remarkably simple to build in BDB (there's no Saturn quadcoupler, but three modules radially attached around a single central one actually look really good), yet enough lifting power to be useful, particularly the stretched upper stage version.

[friznit]

I try to avoid calling anything 'Nova', since there is so much misunderstanding about what is essentially a buzzword for any new concepts that don't have a name yet. In this wiki I put things like that down as "Kerbal Koncepts" images, kinda like what you get on the back of a lego box.

[JacobB094]

Well, this is a good opportunity to clear up the misunderstanding, then. Let's start with the fact that it was not, in fact, a buzzword, nor was it even some vague specification, far from it. At the time, Nova was simply a family of rocket designs for lunar landing via direct ascent. Essentially, Saturn was EOR and Nova was DA, nothing more to it. The C-8 is very much an outlier design, too. Most Novas were clustered designs of various stripes, sometimes with reusable first stage (also present on Saturn, the S-I was originally supposed to be recoverable), and had a far more interesting look than "big Saturn V". In fact, only the latest batch of designs actually outlifts the Saturn V by a significant margin. Essentially, Saturn had caught up with the previous Nova designs over time, and Nova became closer to Saturn, eventually sharing its stages. It is consistent, though, that at any given point, Nova outlifted its contemporaries, since DA was the most demanding mission profile.

The confusion comes partially because after the LOR was selected as mission profile, killing the lunar Nova program (no direct ascent, no Nova), the name was reused for a very different program of vehicles for a possible Mars mission and beyond, resulting in all the gargantuan plug nozzles, SSTOs, nuclear engines (they were present on lunar Novas, but fairly restrained, the "Saturn C-4N" is actually one such Nova design) and so on. Those are well and truly out of scope, but they, too, were serious, if optimistic, proposals for the next generation of rockets. There was a lot of those because three companies (Martin, Douglas and GD) were told to study the matter, and each came up with a batch of different designs.

Also, one thing I forgot about the C-5 versus Saturn V: the S-IVB was still a 228 inch stage (so S-IV sized) on the first C-5. The "slightly smaller diameter" the current article is referring to was, in fact, a much skinnier and somewhat taller stage in 1961 and early 1962. It is buildable in BDB using S-IV hardware, though it was also supposed to have a nifty jettisonable skirt that contained the ullage motors and RCS.