It was more of politic desicion by Johnson Administration, it needed the money for Social program.
Yes the Saturn IB was expensive compaire to Titan IIIC, But that USAF program, while Saturn IB is NASA program.
And Saturn IB is manned raided compaire to unmanned Titan IIIC.
There were join-Venture proposals to use TItan III Variant M/F But cancellation of MOL program and Rise.of Shuttle program End this fast.
In TL EtS the Shuttle program died, admistrator Low goes for Saturn derivate the IC Version
New Tank Struktur with F-1A Engine with R&D Cost are bargin compaire to Shuttle Program.
Alone the new tank would Cost simelare to Shuttle external Tank with $1.5 billion
In my and SpaceGeek TL 2001: A Space-Time Odysses
Here NASA restart the Saturn IB production, But with 1970s Hardware
General Dynamics rebuild here the first stage, with Delta Engines R-27 (upraded H-1 engine)
Second stage get advance J-2S, in total 10 Saturn IC are Build. And 3 Saturn IB are modifed to IC Version.
It use also the centaur as thrid stage for Deep Space probes
On higher cost, Nixon and capitol hill Not care, the soviets landed First on Moon
the USA has to win the Space Race After they loose Moon Race in this TL.
Last edited:
Sorry, was out of town for the weekend...
EDIT: @Michel Van do you have any additional artwork for the Europa 3/4? I know I have seen pencil drawings but I haven't seen anything like what is present on the wiki for Europa 1/2/TA/HE.
Yeah it seems to be working fine. Roll control (at least in KSP...) isn't terribly important as long as the heading is correct. The S-IVB APS units can really easily correct any roll issues before second stage burn.
Me too! I am not sure about what would be in them, I think we basically assumed that (for gameplay purposes) they'd have 'seating' (since kerbals have to be seated, they can't free float unfortunately) for 2/3 kerbals, and then just some cargo bag props etc lining the walls from the stock parts.Sounds cool! I'm interested in seeing TaintedLion's IVAs--Nixonshead was never much one for interiors, so it'll be interesting to get to stick my head into one.
Awesome, good to know I was headed in the right direction with those!
They're definitely be possible. We're starting with Blue Streak + Black Arrow from another mod; those parts are being split off to form the basis of this mod. Back when he made them, I was able to get the author to properly scale the parts so that you could build the Black Prince. Centaur... well, at minimum it'd be possible by using my mod? Since they all have somewhat complementary parts to begin with. I don't think it'll take much work to make them possible in any case, the only thing off the top of my head (besides Centaur) would be that other upper stage solid, the Wallaby or whatever.
Yeah I'll shoot you my email via PM. No rush.
EDIT: @Michel Van do you have any additional artwork for the Europa 3/4? I know I have seen pencil drawings but I haven't seen anything like what is present on the wiki for Europa 1/2/TA/HE.
Last edited:
I wrote:
Kirk Kerman wrote:
Great ANOTHER forum I have to follow now! (On the other hand, that means more time for 'research' and more excuses for why I'm not writing a time-line so... )
Some general comments; The F1 was more expensive than the H1 to build since it had a lower production run comparatively. The H1 was produced as the S-3D for the Air Force Thor and Jupiter, and then re-built as the H1 for the Saturn program and then went back and replaced the original S-3D on later models of the Thor-to-Delta launch vehicle. The F1 was only used on the Saturn-V's S-1C stage and overall the S-1C was a very expensive stage to produce and use. Part of the problem with trying to keep the Apollo infrastructure was no one wanted to give up the Saturn-V or the F1 which was difficult to justify on a cost basis.
Now having said that I'll point out that AS an Air Force project there was of course NO plans to use it on anything the ARMY (Marshall and Von Braun's team in other words ) was designing. So the Air Force had a 'better' idea called Arcturus;
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40012.msg1547305#msg1547305
to
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40012.msg1548439#msg1548439
With an illustration here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40012.msg1548246#msg1548246
Two F1s using what amounts to a cluster of 7 Titan-1 bodies, (the picture shows them 'blended' into one body but most text states they are 'clustered' Titan bodies and not a monolithic set of tanks) six around one mounted on a thrust structure with four more clustered Titans for the upper stage vehicle. (Yep that's a total of 11 Titans ) This was probably no more than a study but it was suggested in 1959 that using the Arcturus the US could reach the Moon in 1965! (Note that a successful two-stage Titan had yet to fly at that point)
Cost wise the tooling for the Saturn-1 'cluster' was mostly paid for even before the program began except for thrust structure and spider beam since it was all from the Jupiter and Redstone program. Mono-tanking was considered often as an upgrade direction but it was always pointed out the structure was mass-efficient and payload gain was less than a ton overall. Similarly the toughness meant it could handle some upgrades such as tank stretches, added boosters and ocean impact for recovery much better than a single tank design.
I don't agree with e's or Goblin's "justification" for the Saturn-1C overall but I love the way it read and flows and frankly the time-and-place, (as I noted above) was that everyone was trying to justify keeping as much of the Saturn-V as possible moving on and the way they did it makes sense and flows logically so I'll reserve my 'arguments' for my own time line since I have to justify never having the Saturn-V being available
Shevek23: The EA remarks about 'recoverable' and 'reusable' are rather obvious, it parachutes into the ocean down range as is recovered back to the be refurbished and reused. There was a lot less 'fear' over ocean recover because they, (NASA) were quite aware of the requirements for protection and refurbishment of at least the stage if not the F1 engines. Anything using F1 engines is probably going to be too far down range to glide back (assuming wings) and fly back requires added air breathing engines and fuel for those engines along with pilot(s) and a cockpit, (remember when we're talking remote or automatic flight wasn't considered a 'thing' at the time) and vertical landing was still very much a 'future' thing for Earth.
Dimension wise we're looking at the same diameter as the standard Saturn-1 S01B stage, I'd assume the 119ft height is the full vehicle rather than just the first stage but with 2XF1s and assuming a 'standard' S-IVB of around 40ft long, that's like a foot shorter than the standard S-1B! If the 119ft IS only the first stage that's almost half again the normal size of 80ft. Wow, topped with a 40ft S-IVB and (say) a 20 to 30 foot payload you're looking around 189ft as an LV. Less than the original "A1" Saturn concept with the Titan and Centaur stages and only a bit over the 'standard' Saturn-1B all up height so not bad.
Randy
Kirk Kerman wrote:
Great ANOTHER forum I have to follow now! (On the other hand, that means more time for 'research' and more excuses for why I'm not writing a time-line so...
)Some general comments; The F1 was more expensive than the H1 to build since it had a lower production run comparatively. The H1 was produced as the S-3D for the Air Force Thor and Jupiter, and then re-built as the H1 for the Saturn program and then went back and replaced the original S-3D on later models of the Thor-to-Delta launch vehicle. The F1 was only used on the Saturn-V's S-1C stage and overall the S-1C was a very expensive stage to produce and use. Part of the problem with trying to keep the Apollo infrastructure was no one wanted to give up the Saturn-V or the F1 which was difficult to justify on a cost basis.
Now having said that I'll point out that AS an Air Force project there was of course NO plans to use it on anything the ARMY (Marshall and Von Braun's team in other words
) was designing. So the Air Force had a 'better' idea called Arcturus;http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40012.msg1547305#msg1547305
to
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40012.msg1548439#msg1548439
With an illustration here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40012.msg1548246#msg1548246
Two F1s using what amounts to a cluster of 7 Titan-1 bodies, (the picture shows them 'blended' into one body but most text states they are 'clustered' Titan bodies and not a monolithic set of tanks) six around one mounted on a thrust structure with four more clustered Titans for the upper stage vehicle. (Yep that's a total of 11 Titans
) This was probably no more than a study but it was suggested in 1959 that using the Arcturus the US could reach the Moon in 1965! (Note that a successful two-stage Titan had yet to fly at that point)Cost wise the tooling for the Saturn-1 'cluster' was mostly paid for even before the program began except for thrust structure and spider beam since it was all from the Jupiter and Redstone program. Mono-tanking was considered often as an upgrade direction but it was always pointed out the structure was mass-efficient and payload gain was less than a ton overall. Similarly the toughness meant it could handle some upgrades such as tank stretches, added boosters and ocean impact for recovery much better than a single tank design.
I don't agree with e's or Goblin's "justification" for the Saturn-1C overall but I love the way it read and flows and frankly the time-and-place, (as I noted above) was that everyone was trying to justify keeping as much of the Saturn-V as possible moving on and the way they did it makes sense and flows logically so I'll reserve my 'arguments' for my own time line since I have to justify never having the Saturn-V being available
Shevek23: The EA remarks about 'recoverable' and 'reusable' are rather obvious, it parachutes into the ocean down range as is recovered back to the be refurbished and reused. There was a lot less 'fear' over ocean recover because they, (NASA) were quite aware of the requirements for protection and refurbishment of at least the stage if not the F1 engines. Anything using F1 engines is probably going to be too far down range to glide back (assuming wings) and fly back requires added air breathing engines and fuel for those engines along with pilot(s) and a cockpit, (remember when we're talking remote or automatic flight wasn't considered a 'thing' at the time) and vertical landing was still very much a 'future' thing for Earth.
Dimension wise we're looking at the same diameter as the standard Saturn-1 S01B stage, I'd assume the 119ft height is the full vehicle rather than just the first stage but with 2XF1s and assuming a 'standard' S-IVB of around 40ft long, that's like a foot shorter than the standard S-1B! If the 119ft IS only the first stage that's almost half again the normal size of 80ft. Wow, topped with a 40ft S-IVB and (say) a 20 to 30 foot payload you're looking around 189ft as an LV. Less than the original "A1" Saturn concept with the Titan and Centaur stages and only a bit over the 'standard' Saturn-1B all up height so not bad.
Randy
Actually i dig out the old files on Europa 3/4 !
I will overwork them with Vector graphic "Affinity Designer"
what caused the Delay ?
first i made a heap of graphic on Europa / Ariane Rocket versions for German Space Books
After that for while i don't want to making another version Europa Rocket
But then i got life-threatening sick, operated and for next two years put my life back together.
for moment the original graphic on Europa 3/4
Oh, I was just asking if you had any that I hadn't seen. Though I'm sure that everyone would appreciate more visualizations of that rocket.
I have the image you posted in my references folder, it is very cool! Glad to hear that you are feeling better.Some more progress from me. WIP versions of the Aardvark and Block III+ Apollo parts are now up on my Github for those interested. No specular or normal mapping on them yet - I make those by copying and modifying the diffuse maps, and these are on a large texture that's ~75% full. I might be able to fit the Block IV, Block V, and AARDV Block II parts on that map as well, so I'm holding off on making those other maps until I can do them all at once.
I know other people have definitely done a Block III Apollo before, but to my knowledge nobody has ever done AARDV in Kerbal Space Program. Can't wait to get Apollo, and then Skylab/Spacelab done so I can see what people do with them. Someone should start bugging the Realism Overhaul guys to port them over... I know that they're not perfect representations - there's a lot of compromises in terms of scales and proportions to make them work in game - but if anyone wants any of the assets for something I can throw them up on Dropbox.
Also finished a new batch of Centaur parts that can be used for G, G', and T - which means that Centaur E from TTL is possible.
Y'all can follow updates here. If you're interested in what I have on the backburner, I somewhat maintain a roadmap (more of a list of stuff I want to do) on Google Docs. On a related note, I have it on good authority that my friends over at CX Aerospace are trying to get Freedom's Challenger model in game tonight.
I know other people have definitely done a Block III Apollo before, but to my knowledge nobody has ever done AARDV in Kerbal Space Program. Can't wait to get Apollo, and then Skylab/Spacelab done so I can see what people do with them. Someone should start bugging the Realism Overhaul guys to port them over...
I know that they're not perfect representations - there's a lot of compromises in terms of scales and proportions to make them work in game - but if anyone wants any of the assets for something I can throw them up on Dropbox. Also finished a new batch of Centaur parts that can be used for G, G', and T - which means that Centaur E from TTL is possible.
Y'all can follow updates here. If you're interested in what I have on the backburner, I somewhat maintain a roadmap (more of a list of stuff I want to do) on Google Docs. On a related note, I have it on good authority that my friends over at CX Aerospace are trying to get Freedom's Challenger model in game tonight.
Thanks! They'd definitely look better if I layered on the sort of effects that @nixonshead normally would for his renders - all the camera lens type effects, for instance. It's possible with graphics mods for Kerbal (GemFX or ReShade) but my poor computer already was pretty taxed... notice that the clouds (which were added by a mod) are missing in the last screenshot; I had to uninstall them since my computer was running out of memory.
As I said, I was only running a handful of visual mods. Some people run even more - some of the results are absolutely breathtaking.
Can't find it again online but I have a copy of a 1958 progress report on the Juno-V, (Saturn-1 before it was officially renamed) that shows they studied using a single F1 with the four steerable H1s retained for control purposes. Page 22 of the report discuss' the concept.
Didn't go into to much detail as they didn't have a lot on the actual F1 at that point. Overall it would seem you needed at least two of the H1s (or similar) for 'control' engines but otherwise the single F1 concept seems to be 'solid' from an engineering POV. (You can get away with massive reaction wheels in KSP, not so much RL ) Economics and practicality, eh I won't argue. (In THIS TL that is )
Randy
Didn't go into to much detail as they didn't have a lot on the actual F1 at that point. Overall it would seem you needed at least two of the H1s (or similar) for 'control' engines but otherwise the single F1 concept seems to be 'solid' from an engineering POV. (You can get away with massive reaction wheels in KSP, not so much RL
) Economics and practicality, eh I won't argue. (In THIS TL that is )Randy
Can't find it again online but I have a copy of a 1958 progress report on the Juno-V, (Saturn-1 before it was officially renamed) that shows they studied using a single F1 with the four steerable H1s retained for control purposes. Page 22 of the report discuss' the concept.
Didn't go into to much detail as they didn't have a lot on the actual F1 at that point. Overall it would seem you needed at least two of the H1s (or similar) for 'control' engines but otherwise the single F1 concept seems to be 'solid' from an engineering POV. (You can get away with massive reaction wheels in KSP, not so much RL
Randy
I'm considering including a patch in my download that makes all the reaction wheels in the game 1/10 as strong.
Make them use all those attitude thrusters I make...Does that mean that the study is before they named it Saturn, but after they dropped the E-1s? Interesting. And those are some crazy powerful verniers!
EDIT: What else is in that report? If there's anything else of interest, would you be able to upload it for me? I'm slowly amassing piles of reference for weird/obscure Saturn variants... I added the J-2T-200K engine tonight, as well as the missing first two stages for the Scout which some people had asked for. Starting to really lose a sense of scale, bouncing back and forth between projects like this...
EDIT2: Another question. How are any of the later Apollo variants (AARDV, Block III+, IV) balanced for their RCS? I've been scratching my head at that one.
Last edited:
I'm considering including a patch in my download that makes all the reaction wheels in the game 1/10 as strong.
Hey you worked hard on em
Does that mean that the study is before they named it Saturn, but after they dropped the E-1s? Interesting. And those are some crazy powerful verniers!
Actually it was 'officially' still the Juno-V but the report suggests renaming it as Saturn since that is what it was called internally. Crazy powerful verniers for a crazy powerful, (doubled the basic thrust and a little more) engine! Yes the E1s were mentioned as being several years further out than even the F1 which is why they settled on the H1s.
I think I actually found it online somewhere but can't now, not to worry though I have a source for a reasonable price and lots more goodies:
http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/catalog/spacedoc23.jpg
Scott's site is fantastic for information and history.
Most seemed to use pretty standard Apollo based RCS quads so as long as the weight-and-balance vis-à-vis the CG worked out pretty well it would seem that you'd have no problems. Then again that seems to have been a recurring theme prior to Apollo-1 in that everything was simply expected to "go" well.
Randy
Block II+ and Block IV have their CG a bit forward of the thrusters (~0.75m), making them off balance a bit. It doesn't matter much for pitch, roll, or yaw, and the difference in y or z translation can be solved with some active counteraction by the computer. The moment arm ratio means it'd increase the RCS prop for these kind of translation maneuvers by about 35% by my math. That's not...killer.
Other ships in the family have more issues. There's a reason that the Block II Aardvark has forward thrusters, though, and if you look carefully at Freedom pretty much every module has little thruster packages installed on them that were tied into the AARDV during rendezvous and docking. We could have stuck some on the Block III+ and IV Mission Modules, but it'd either mean storing prop on the outside of the MM, or inside the cabin and ducted outside, or fed from the SM after docking, and those all seemed...in their own way worse than just accepting the 30% translation prop mass increase from steering slightly off-center.
Hey you worked hard on em
Actually it was 'officially' still the Juno-V but the report suggests renaming it as Saturn since that is what it was called internally. Crazy powerful verniers for a crazy powerful, (doubled the basic thrust and a little more) engine! Yes the E1s were mentioned as being several years further out than even the F1 which is why they settled on the H1s.
I think I actually found it online somewhere but can't now, not to worry though I have a source for a reasonable price and lots more goodies:
http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/catalog/spacedoc23.jpg
Scott's site is fantastic for information and history.
Most seemed to use pretty standard Apollo based RCS quads so as long as the weight-and-balance vis-à-vis the CG worked out pretty well it would seem that you'd have no problems. Then again that seems to have been a recurring theme prior to Apollo-1 in that everything was simply expected to "go" well.
Randy
Ah yes, Scott is one of my heroes at this point. @TimothyC bought his X-20 Dyna Soar materials for a friend who wanted to make an addon for my addon.
E1s were considered further out than F1s? Do you know why? That probably explains a lot. The E-1 is kind of an interesting engine, if only for the bizarre shape on the bell.
Alright. I'll have to see how they perform in game then. I don't think KSP's RCS module is smart enough to properly compensate for unbalanced RCS. I know that isn't a problem for the real space program but it's one of the cold, hard realities I have to live with every day.
Ah yes, Scott is one of my heroes at this point. @TimothyC bought his X-20 Dyna Soar materials for a friend who wanted to make an addon for my addon.
He's every aviation/space buffs hero but we need to get people to buy more stuff, so...
E1s were considered further out than F1s? Do you know why? That probably explains a lot. The E-1 is kind of an interesting engine, if only for the bizarre shape on the bell.
And that's what I get with going from memory rather than my notes or the actual report
It wasn't the E1-F1 it was the E1-H1. The E1 wasn't ready yet so they chose the H1 for primary propulsion because the H1s were available as a modification of the S-3D.The problem with the E1 was that at between 300,000lb and 400,000lb it wasn't as powerful as the F1, to new and 'untried' enough compared to the H1 and lost out to the LR87* for the Titan so there was no requirement it could fill by the time it was ready. Rocketdyne actually requested the Air Force drop their interest in the engine so they could cancel it.
Randy
*Fun fact: An LH2/LOX version of the LR87 was in the running to replace the RL10s on the Saturn but lost out to the J2 which promised greater thrust and less weight. The LR87 is known as the first engine to every run on all 'three' main operational propellant combinations. I'm SO using that in my TL
And that's what I get with going from memory rather than my notes or the actual report
The problem with the E1 was that at between 300,000lb and 400,000lb it wasn't as powerful as the F1, to new and 'untried' enough compared to the H1 and lost out to the LR87* for the Titan so there was no requirement it could fill by the time it was ready. Rocketdyne actually requested the Air Force drop their interest in the engine so they could cancel it.
Poor E1
I think it would have filled a useful role, had it been finished. Though probably not something that wouldn't have been better served by a pair of H1s...*Fun fact: An LH2/LOX version of the LR87 was in the running to replace the RL10s on the Saturn but lost out to the J2 which promised greater thrust and less weight. The LR87 is known as the first engine to every run on all 'three' main operational propellant combinations. I'm SO using that in my TL
*Psst* I have a single mount version of the LR87-LH in my mod if you ever need to visualize it a bit.
Poor E1
Test fired it at least once but yes, pretty much a bridesmaid, never a bride thing...
Ok, so you're volunteering to CGI illustrate my timeline now? In a public forum? You know that's legally binding right?
Randy