BT-80 based Saturn V/ "Saturn I-F"
 

Hi all...

Well, after finishing the Dr. Zooch SLS last week, I thought I'd dust off some projects that have been partially finished. Last summer, while at the MIL's in Indiana, I turned a transition out of pink house insulation foam for a BT-80 based Saturn V. Didn't take long to figure out that a BT-80 based Saturn V, with a BT-60 based S-IVB third stage, would be perfectly "in scale" with the Dr. Zooch Saturn I/IB's I bought (but have yet to assemble.) In fact, I was playing with the idea a good while back and bought an extra pair of SLA adapter transitions, SM tubes, and CM BPC nosecones from Dr. Zooch on a big kit order. One has been sitting in the box awhile, and the other on the BT-60 S-IVB for "inspiration". So, having turned the transition and then the project 'stalling out' at the end of last summer, I decided to get back to work on it.

First off, I decided that the foam, while an excellent core for the transition, wasn't quite tight enough or really as strong as I'd like for a transition. I turned one end slightly undersize and that also complicated things, so I took a page out of the Tim Van Milligan Rocketry Workshop vids and added a tube coupler to each side (after sanding down the side that wasn't undersize so the coupler could slip over) The transition itself was made by cutting an appropriately sized "blank" from pink foam, doubled up to make the blank bigger than the diameter of the finished BT-80 transition base. A little quick work with Peter Alway's "Rockets of the World" and a calculator gave me the correct scale factor (roughly 1/152) and dimensions for the transition. Wrap a dowel in sandpaper and sand a half-round slot in each block of foam, then using epoxy or other NON-EVAPORATIVE CURING adhesive (IE NOT white glue, yellow glue, or other 'water solvent' type glues (of course they have to be FOAM SAFE AS WELL) glue the two blocks around a dowel. Once dry, cut the block down to the approximate size (octagonal) and tighten it up in the chuck of a drill (homemade lathe I built, using a $14 Harbor Freight drill for power) and turn the transitiond down to size using progressively finer grits of sandpaper.


Once the transition had the couplers glued on, I did a bit of experimenting with an online transition maker and came up with the appropriately sized transition, trimmed the pattern out of printer paper, trimmed it to final fit, and then traced it onto cardstock and cut it out. Using an old ball-point pen that no longer works and a piece of cardboard (or old mouse pad if you have a spent one) I "embossed" the corrugations in the cardstock transition by eye. Since it's on a conical part, the corrugation lines all have to 'intersect' at the center point of the transition, so this is probably better done before cutting it out, using a steel ruler through the center point as a guide for the corrugation lines as they're embossed onto the cardstock transition. Remember they have to be embossed from the INSIDE of the transition. I also added another "dividing line" halfway between the upper BT-60 end of the transition and the lower BT-80 end, using a drafting compass, to guide painting of the interstage roll pattern later on. The handy transition tool on the web also prints markings for both three and four fins if the transition is used as a tail cone, which makes it VERY easy to lay out the proper roll pattern on the transition. Simply go over the lines with a ruler and pencil to make the lines fully visible and where they intersect with the "halfway mark" you put on the transition earlier with the drafting compass establishes the roll pattern. Once the transition is marked, cut out, embossed, test fitted, and glued up, it's then ready to glue over the foam transition core. Some final trimming pretty much finished it off. I added a paper "ring" about 1/8 inch wide to the top of the BT-80 coupler tube at the transition base to make a positive step "shoulder" to keep the transition from going too far into the tube, especially under the gee forces and drag pressure of flight. I topped this thin paper ring with a decorative ribbed paper "wrap" to smooth the blend with the corrugated transition wrap above.

Next is the F-1 engine fairings. After some more calculations with the "Rockets of the World" photocopy 'worksheet', I determined that BT-55 was pretty darn close to the correct size for the fairings. Going back to the online transition tool, I printed off a "tranistion" which was basically a paper cone... the transition tool wouldn't accept "0" as a 'custom tube size' so I put "0.010 inches" as the upper tube diameter, and it worked... it printed out an cone with a TINY circle at the upper end which I then subsequently ignored in cutting out the fairing patterns. Again, since the fairings are a HALF circle, you cut the pattern in half using the "second fin line" halfway around the circumference of the cone. Next, emboss the pattern similarly to how was done with the upper stage tranistion, but this is a bit more difficult since ALL the corrugations would converge at the point. It's best to end every other one about 3/8 inch or so from the fairing "tip", or even every 2 for each 1 that goes all the way to the tip. This makes a neater looking fairing. Next, the four transitions are glued to the outside of a BT-55 tube, using white glue and set aside to dry...

Here's the completed transition, on top of the S-II stage tube

More later! OL JR

These fairings are using the same method Dr. Zooch uses in his kits for external half-round fairings-- gluing "skins" onto an appropriately sized tube, and then cutting them out of the tube wall. Once dry, carefully cut around the skins and liberate the fairings from the parent BT-55 tube. The curvature of the tube has to be "corrected", as if you put the fairing on a flat surface, you'll quickly see that it touches at three points-- the two rear ones and the very front tip, with the sides off the surface. Using an old ballpoint pen inside the fairing for support, gently "recurve" the fairing to a tighter diameter, getting tighter and tighter as you move toward the tip. The tip should basically roll right around the point of the pen. Work slowly to avoid creases. Next, measuring up from the base of the fairing the appropriate amount (since the fairings extend past the back end of the tube a certain amount, and are NOT flush with it) mark the fairings at the appropriate place and measure the width there. This will be the "outside diameter" of the "half-moons" that will go inside the fairings to shore them up and give a place to mount the F-1 engines later on. Using a drafting compass, lay these out, cut them out, and test fit for correctness. I traced around a BT-80 to get the "inner diameter" of the half-moons, and then traces the test fit patterns (which looked like a "D" at that point) onto cardstock and cut the "half moons" out of the cardstock and glued them onto a sheet of 1/8 balsa. These are then cut out when the glue is dry, and sanded to shape, and then glued inside the fairings at the proper place (recessed from the end of the fairing so they're flush with the end of the BT-80 when the fairing is glued on the rocket body-- measure up the inside of the fairing and put a line there to guide the glue-up). Once dry, the fairings are then custom fitted to the tube before being glued in place.

The fairings are custom fitted to the tube by installing a coupler or two inside a spare piece of tubing to shore it up, and then wrapping the tube with sandpaper, and holding the fairing at the proper angle, it's sanded up and down the length of the tube until it conforms snugly to the tube. This will sand the outer edges and the "half moons" at the same time (I did SOME pre-fit sanding to the half moons after cutting them out to get them to conform fairly closely to both the fairing and the tubing to minimize the final custom fit sanding).

I decided after getting the fairings done for the Saturn V, to go ahead and do a second project at the same time that I had in mind a couple years ago when I bought the parts for the nosecones of these rockets-- the "Saturn I-F" that was proposed to replace the "Cluster's Last Stand" amalgamation of Jupiter and Redstone missile-derived fuel/oxidizer tanks used to build the Saturn I/IB first stage. These made the development of the Saturn I first stage easier (and cheaper) but it also meant that the stage weighed a LOT more than necessary structurally (which of course hurts payload-- it's not QUITE as critical on a first stage, which has to save around 10-11 pounds to add a single pound to ultimate orbital payload, but still, the added weight and complexity also increased the cost of materials and manufacturing of the stages, which drove up operational costs for Saturn I/IB and ultimately helped, with other factors, to doom the program). The proposed solution was to create a new first stage, similar to the S-IC first stage of Saturn V, using a single LOX tank above a single kerosene tank separated by an intertank ring. This proposed stage would dispense with the 8 engine cluster of H-1's, and replace them with a pair of F-1 engines like Saturn V, and incorporating the F-1A improvements when they came online. This new stage could also be strapped onto the sides of a Saturn V (using two or four) as Liquid Rocket Boosters, or LRB's (though the term hadn't been coined when it was proposed-- they were called "pods" back then!) Such "dual use" would have really helped the Saturn program and would have most likely been incorporated had the shuttle not happened and the Saturn program kept going (in some form) and was "evolved" over time. This proposal is also quite close to the "Saturn C-3" proposal from the early days of the Saturn program. To replace the Saturn IB, this twin F-1 powered first stage would have been topped with a regular Saturn IB S-IVB stage, IU, SLA panels, CSM, and LAS tower. (See the Saturn Studies Summaries in the scale area for more information on all this).

SO, after re-reading the relevant studies and diagrams, doing a little "comparative anatomy" on the "booster pod" diagram, Saturn IB diagram in "Rockets of the World", and doing some careful measurement and calculation, I came up with the necessary figures to construct the 260 inch Saturn I-F first stage, and mate it to the 260 inch S-IVB second stage of a standard Saturn I-B. Next, the BT-60 is laid out with a reference line and the appropriate measurements to delineate the various tanks, intertanks, forward and aft skirts, and interstages needed. Then the fairings are glued on at the appropriate points. The "half moons" are lined up with the aft ends of the main body tube (BT-80 for the Saturn V, BT-60 for the Saturn I-F)
Once glued on and lightly filleted to ensure no gaps in the bond, the fairings are trimmed and lightly sanded until they're parallel with the aft end of the main rocket body tube. (the difference in curvature means they'll be slightly "out of plane" with the rear of the tube-- this effect is most pronounced on the smaller diameter Saturn I-F, but noticeable on the Saturn V as well). A slight trim with the hobby knife followed by a good sanding with 220 grit really gets everything trued up...

Next everything's test fitted... The Saturn V will have a tube coupler at the S-IC/S-II cylindrical interstage (might make it a baffle-- haven't decided yet, nor on what I'll use to power this (single D/E with outboards for a five cluster most likely) or the Saturn I-F (pair of 18mm's or 13mm's perhaps). Here's the final layup of the fairings on the S-IC on the Saturn V.

And here's the Saturn V S-II stage, conical transition interstage, S-IVB, SLA balsa transition, and CSM cones.

More later! OL JR

Here's what I've done so far... the Saturn V all mated up and layed out. Still have to do the corrugated wraps at the appropriate locations for the interstages, intertanks, and fwd/aft stage skirts, thrust structures, etc. plus all the external details and such. I have SOME ribbed cardstock, but I think the ribs are too big for much above the first stage.

Here also is the Saturn I-F... Since this rocket is 260 inches (BT-60) on both stages (like Saturn I-B) it's made from a single length of BT-60 tubing, which has been marked at the appropriate locations for the corrugated wraps of cardstock for the interstages, intertank (on the first stage which would have been constructed like a "mini S-IC", even using the same Saturn V F-1 engine fairings!) and fwd/aft stage skirts and such.

Now I've got to hunt down some finer ribbed cardstock paper...

Later! OL JR

If you are unable to find some, here is a technique which may give you the result you want, with some practice: http://oldrocketforum.com/showpost....438&postcount=4


Bill

Guys,

I was the original benefactor of Bill's technique, and I gotta tell you it does take some practice. I got my cutter at Michael's, the Martha Stewart version, on sale. And it does work . . . .

I'm no where near ready to try a tapered section, but be aware that I struggle in all things paper and some (or all) of you may pick it up faster than I. After a month or two of practice, I'm now ready to do the relatively simple corregations on my Shenzhou. I have used the 110 pound paper and it works fine.

Thanks for the tip, Bill! Got any pics to go with it?? (pic's worth a thousand words... LOL:))

I found some ribbed paper, but it was an interesting story how it came about...

Interesting how things work sometimes. I emailed Wes at Dr. Zooch and inquired about the corrugated paper he uses on kits like the SLS I just finished, that has a ribbed "intertank" area. In "the old days" kits like the shuttle and Atlas had ribbed mylar "party streamer" material for the intertanks and thrust structures. It worked pretty well actually, despite being a bit difficult to cut unless you had a VERY sharp hobby knife blade! He replied that he gets it at the chain store "Michaels". Ok... I've gotten some there before (see pics below) but they never had a whole lot-- maybe their Michaels stores in Maryland are far better supplied than ours are. Or, maybe I haven't actually been in Michaels in awhile and what was rare as hen's teeth last time I was in there is now commonplace. Since we don't have a Michael's very close by, that's certainly possible...

As it turns out, yesterday while I was doing laundry and enjoying our first inch of rain in about the last 90 days, the wife calls and announces she's broken down between her school she teaches at and our six year old daughter's school 10 miles away-- so she needs a rescue. The nephew and I jumped in the truck, grabbed a gas can (was pretty sure from her description that she'd run the car out of gas-- AGAIN... she does this almost yearly-- what do women have against keeping a FULL TANK OF GAS!?? ) So, we drive the 30 miles to Keira's school, pick her up from after-care, and go find mommy and put a five gallon jerry can of gas in her car-- presto it's fixed. After an early supper, we head for Michael's (since I'm in suburban Houston now anyway and it's not far off the beaten path from there) and I start searching high and low for ribbed cardstock. They had a display of textured cardstock just inside the door, but the only thing they have 'ribbed' is some "corrugated" two-ply cardstock that looks basically like fine cardboard without the top outer flat layer-- it's a corrugated sheet glued to a flat backer sheet. Everything else is foo-foo girly stuff of no use to anybody... So I make my way over to the cardstock aisle. In pidgeonholes (pidgeontrays is probably more accurate) from floor to ceiling practically, the whole length of the aisle, is the cardstocks, in every imaginable color and various textures-- EXCEPT RIBBED! They have "woodgrain" pattern, which is similar to ribbed except the "grain" is neither evenly spaced or parallel to each other-- useless. They have "crosshatched" similar to "hand-made" or 'linen' paper... and they have them in 395 different colors... but NO RIBBED. After 20 minutes of searching every tray, no joy. Finally in desperation I start searching the "paper collections" across the aisle.

SUCCESS! I FINALLY find a pack of "foil covered" cardstock that is ribbed. It comes in a 30 sheet pack with "cross-hatched" and in various gaudy metallic colors (actually kinda cool in a way, but hardly necessary for my use) and the cross-hatched is worthless to me, but hey, Keira can use it for crafts... but the pack is $20. As I'm looking through every other pack on the aisle hoping to stumble across something cheaper that's ALL ribbed cardstock and not foil covered, an Asian lady comes down the aisle and thrusts a 40% off coupon in my hand-- "Here-- I have an extra!" she says as she briskly keeps moving... "THANKS!" I call after her... now the $20 pack of paper doesn't seem SO much like highway robbery... After finishing my search of the packs, no such luck-- it's the $20 foil covered ribbed paper or NOTHING. So I get it. Wandered back over to the front display and check again, in case I missed something... Pulled out a sheet of the "corrugated" stuff and looked at it, flipped it over, and noticed "The Paper Company" sticker on the back, which I've seen on the back of some of the paper wraps in Dr. Zooch kits. So I figured "what the heck" and bought the sheet, though it's probably too coarse a corrugation for anything I'm likely to build in the next year or two, but I'd rather have it in storage than not have it and need it!

SO, here's the foil-coated ribbed cardstock-- by AC Specialty Paper, (30) 12x12 inch sheets, half are ribbed, the other half cross-hatched. On the back it says www.americancrafts.com


Here's the "corrugated" sheet I bought, and a pic of the label on back that matches the partial labels I've seen on the back of Dr. Zooch ribbed paper wraps...


Here's what I got at some craft store or other along the line (maybe Michaels, maybe somewhere else in Indiana)... had it in storage and used some of it. I also had some black ribbed cardstock I picked up at Michaels I think, but I can't seem to find it now... it's probably in storage around here somewhere...

Anyway, that's the cardstock oddyssey... LOL Might have better luck finding this stuff from some scrapbooking supply house online...

Later! OL JR

Ok, finally got some more work done on the Saturn V/Saturn I-F. Got to checking in the ROTW and found that the Saturn V had 108 corrugations on the S-IC intertank, and 216 on the S-IC forward skirt. IOW, the corrugations should be about half the size on the fwd skirt as on the intertank. Peter Alway lists the S-IC thrust structure as having the corrugated stringers 2 degrees 48 minutes apart . Figuring that a circle is 360 degrees and every degree should be 60 seconds of arc, that's 21,600 minutes of arc in a full circle, divided by 2 degrees 48 seconds per stringer (168 seconds of arc) gives 128 stringers (rounded off-- close enough for gov't work). Close enough to the 108 on the intertank to use the same corrugation pattern. SO, I used the "wide corrugation" paper I've had for awhile and custom fitted the panels between the engine fairings on the base of the S-IC and then cut the intertank band that links the top of the kerosene tank and the bottom of the LOX tank. For the forward skirt at the front of the stage, I switched to the foil-coated paper I bought a couple days ago. Carefully marked and cut out with a hobby knife, back coated with white glue, and rolled onto the tank. Here's the results.


Next I switched to the Saturn I-F. Since the first stage/booster pod is built almost identically to the Saturn V S-IC first stage, only smaller, I used the same corrugated white paper for the thrust structure and intertank, and switched to the finer corrugated foil paper for the first stage forward skirt, interstage, and S-IVB upper stage aft skirt, and the S-IVB fwd skirt. SO all the wraps are done on the Saturn I-F.



Next I have to continue debating what to do about fins on the Saturn I-F.... The "booster pod" would have been the basis for the first stage on the Saturn I-F, and that booster pod is not shown with fins. The booster pod is very similar to the Saturn C-3 proposal from 1961, which was never built, and it was never shown with fins (of course the early Saturn I's had no fins either.) SO, considering this is supposed to be an 'evolved' Saturn IB, it's likely that the fins would have been dropped. If we presume they were, then I'll need some kind of add-on fins for flight (and I already have a design in mind for removable clear flight fins). The other alternative is that they'd have grafted on some Saturn I or IB fins or Saturn V fins-- though the fact it only has two engine fairings complicates that issue somewhat. Guess I'll play with it in Rocksim and see what I can come up with. Given the fact that some work had been done to get rid of the fins on Saturn V, which wasn't implemented due to it's low production (but would likely have been implemented had Saturn V production resumed with a second run-- there were literally THOUSANDS of weight and labor saving changes ready to be applied to a second run of Saturn boosters had production ever resumed!) So, that being the case, it might be simplest to go with clear fins and call it good...

More work to do! Later! OL JR

Here's some research that I've come up with on the "Saturn I-F" or "Saturn II" as it's called in one graphic. In fact that graphic shows the thing having Saturn V fins, but it's notional, not anything "official" from NASA studies or anything, but it does look pretty good!

Here's the original graphic I was working from from the Improved Saturn Studies from 1966...

And here's the results of some heavy measuring and number crunching using figures listed in the graphic above, integrated with measurements from the graphic itself and relevant data pertaining to the Saturn IB and Saturn V...

Here's a picture of a model of the finished product (display model, by Mike Robel from nasaspaceflight.com/forums...

Of course if it used Saturn V fins, these would be the measurements (but they'd probably have to be oversize, as is typical for Saturn V models).


More later! OL JR

Of course the other alternatives if using fins would be to use fins off of Saturn I or Saturn IB. The problem with that is the fact that the Saturn I-F uses only two engine fairings, but then again, maybe a combination of fins would have been used-- say 2 Saturn I Block II fins in between the fairings, and Saturn V fins on the fairings themselves... That would work. Saturn IB fins would be more difficult to integrate, being swept, and less effective due to their smaller size. Putting a pair of them between each fairing also would create some weird aero-effects as the air being diverted by the fairing would impinge on the fin and be "trapped" between the fin and fairing, so I don't think that would work at all...

Here's another view of the Saturn V fins with dimensions...


And some more information on the Saturn I Block II fins which would work well centered between the fairings with Saturn V fins ON the fairings...


And this graphic has the relevant measurements for Saturn IB, including the fin dimensions at the bottom...


Later! OL JR

Finally finished with the corrugated wraps. Now she's starting to look like a Saturn V!

First a little pic of a proposed alternative vehicle to Saturn V-- the INT-20. This would have mated a Saturn V S-IC first stage with either 3 or 4 F-1 engines (three inline like Atlas, or four with the center engine missing and it's plumbing capped off-- most versions showed four) topped by an S-IVB Saturn V third stage. This vehicle would have been capable of lifting 78,000 pounds to orbit with three F-1 engines or 132,000 pounds to orbit with four F-1 engines. It's a neat prototype in its own right, as it too was proposed for a replacement for Saturn IB, since Saturn IB had VERY LITTLE payload capability with a CSM on top and couldn't even lift a lunar capable CSM (to the cut the weight, only half the Service Module's regular SPS fuel load was carried when the Apollo CSM was flown on Saturn IB). This vehicle would have used the same stages and assembly lines as Saturn V (in fact the INT-20 S-IC stage was completely interchangeable between the Saturn V configuration and the INT-20 configuration-- there was basically a modification "kit" to make it an INT-20 first stage from the basic Saturn V configuration) and therefore would have been very economical, because unlike the Saturn 1-F or Saturn II, it would not have required a new stage assembly line and tooling (The 1-F would have been good to have if uprated Saturn V's were used, as the first stage of the 1-F doubles as an LRB for the Saturn V itself, and is manufactured almost identically to the S-IC, just smaller, simplifying things and reducing costs (theoretically). Here's the pics of the Saturn in INT-20 mode...


And finally, the 'all up' Saturn V with the S-II stage included, supported by the S-IC and topped by the S-IVB and Apollo stack.


Later! OL JR

You won't be needing it for this build, but here are a couple of shots:


Bill

That looks REALLY nice Bill! Got any pics of the setup to make them?? I didn't quite follow the description...

Later! OL JR :)

Well, been doing some research on the Saturn V... Want to detail the thing pretty well and want to do it accurately. Got some FANTASTIC infographics available over at http://www.apollomaniacs.com/apollo/...aft_menu_e.htm

Everything from the CM, SM, LES tower, SLA panels, and all three stages of the Saturn V, plus the first stage of the Saturn IB. TONS of terrific information.

Been trying to digest it all and integrate it with the stuff in "Rockets of the World" as well as a couple other Saturn V sources I have around the place, as well as information from John Pursley's website http://www.accur8.com/ as there's lots of good info on there as well.

Later! OL JR

Unfortunately not. I only have two hands.

The jist if it is to emboss a straight line across a cardstock strip using the blade slot of the cutter as a negative, then repeat as many times as needed. Where the practice comes in is repeating that consistently.


Bill

Oh, Ok... Yeah, I know the feeling... (look at some of the pics in some of my Dr. Zooch build threads, relating to trimming papered fins and most recently trimming the BT-50 motor block ring at an angle for the SRB aft skirts and you'll see I'm doing it "one handed" so I can take the pic...)

I see what you're getting at now... I've thought about making a grooved wooden block (or some other suitable hard material) for just such a purpose...

Basically after a few passes my old mouse pad got a groove in it deep enough to keep the pen centered and so I just moved the shroud a bit to line up the next line location over the groove and then ran the pen over it. I like your idea of a dedicated 'stylus' better than the old ink pen, but it worked in a pinch.

I've been thinking about mechanical ways of doing this... My SIL gave me an old "paper ribber" she got at a scrapbooking store; it's basically two gears about 9 inches long or so that intermesh, with one turned by a "T" handle on one end. Sorta like an old wringer-type washing machine... feed the paper into it, turn the handle, and it comes out the other side ribbed. Problem is, the ribs are about 1/8 inch wide and 1/8 inch high, so it's WAY too "coarse" of a ribbing for most rocket use (unless you were building say a 1/50 Saturn or something like that-- IE ginormous!) I've thought about doing something similar using smaller gears-- maybe a stack of small brass gears like would typically be used on small electric motors in toy cars or RC stuff... but finding a pack of gears would be fun... then of course they ALL have to remain lined up perfectly (index them to one shaft I suppose) so that opposing gears all remain lined up as the paper is fed between them to rib it. That could work, but like I said, finding the parts to make it could be fun...

The other thought I've had is intermeshing two all-thread rods... 1/4 x 20 rods would work pretty well (not too coarse a ribbing) and feed the paper between them as they were turned against each other, forcing the paper to take the shape of the threads which would be intermeshed as it was fed through... course that would put the ribs lengthwise, but if you could cut the desired wrap out of the paper cross-wise it could work... (they'd also be at an angle unless you fed the paper through to account for the spiral helix of the threads). Also, as it turned, the all-thread rods would move from one end to the other in relation to each other (opposite directions) unless one found an equivalent size left-hand threaded re-rod... :rolleyes:

Of course for conical stuff like the fin fairings and conical S-II/S-IVB interstage, you'd have to basically have a dedicated tool-- one with two intermeshing conical gears to roll the corrugations onto the sloped sides of the parts... (or roll the corrugations on narrower at one end to account for the sloped sides even though the part is still laid out flat from the cardstock).

If I were building kits I'd DEFINITELY have to come up with a solution, but for no more than I'm doing, making them by hand where necessary is good enough...

later! OL JR :)

If I was into posting build threads, I could mount a gum cam on a bracket and take frame grabs of the video.






My first impression of those years ago was that they were too big for what I needed.






My latest thought is to build a computerized milling machine. Pass one would be to engrave a negative image onto an aluminum plate. Pass two is to replace the milling tool with an embosser and make cardstock parts. An additional problem is that embossing changes the dimensions of the cardstock, so some experimentation is needed to figure how to adjust for that.


Bill

You might ask David Hanners on the Yahoo Space Models group where he gets his paper and the stock numbers...

Thanks for the tip Mike... I appreciate it.

I'm pretty well set for now but I had PemTech asking me about this very thing on TRF... he sells kits and I'm sure he'd be interested in a commercial source for ribbed paper in bulk...

Thanks again! OL JR :)

Just so nobody thinks I'm slacking off...

Taken from the apollo maniacs site, checked against some other sites including John Pursley's accur8.com, NARTS Saturn V blueprints, http://www.apollosaturn.com/
http://spacemodels.dk/saturnv.htm
http://www.saturnvmodel.info/
http://www.apolloarchive.com/ http://ricksternbach.com/SatV/Saturn_V_Clinic.html

Here's some pretty straight up graphics below...

I'm going to "clock" all the details to their proper positions on the rocket stack, including the CSM and BPC. I've done some sketchwork of the complete stack in each of the four positions (I, II, III, and IIII, with their CSM/SLA equivalents according to the apollomaniacs stuff (-Z Pos I, -Y Pos II, +Z Pos III, +Y Pos IIII) Once I "map" all the details, I can then transfer them to a "wrap" evenly divided into four quadrants (first scan above) with all the detail locations located on it, which can then be wrapped around the tube and the ends taped together, aligned with the reference line on the body tube, and then correctly radially locate all the details onto the body tubes and forward and aft skirts, etc. Now I have to do one for the S-IVB (it's pretty complicated as well, despite not having as many propellant line fairings as the S-II, there's a lot more details like retrorockets, auxiliary power units, LH2 fill/drain fairings, cable runs, etc... The S-IC should be the simplest of the lot, and I'll save it for last.

More later! OL JR

Got a little more work done today before I had to go fix the old man's water well... and haul a TV to recycling center for my brother, and get parts for the well at Lowe's...

SO, here's the S-IVB wrap with all the details laid out by position number (I,II, III, IIII) Everything above the S-IVB switches to coordinate locations by axes-- (-Z, -Y, +Z, +Y, with the central vertical "roll" axis being +X forward and -X rearward). But that's another story...
Here's the wrap...

And here's a good source for details, along with photos I have of the JSC Saturn V, and ROTW, and John Pursley's accur8.com site, and a few others... including the NARTS Saturn V blueprints I bought years ago (despite them being muched on in storage by silverfish).

Later! OL JR

OK, I'm back...

In addition to the regular "check the cows, tend the farm" stuff that I usually have to do, I've been knocked on my BUTT this week with strep throat. We went to Space Center Houston last Sunday since I promised my nephews we'd go for his birthday (which was in August). So, Betty, Keira, Tristan, Ian, and I went after church since it's only 65 miles from my back door, and church probably trims close to 15 off that. Monday morning I woke up with a bit of a sore throat, but we'd been planning to go to the Splashway Water Park in Sheridan with my brother and his girlfriend and her brother, so off we went. Monday evening I was feeling pretty bad. Tuesday I was wiped out, and Wednesday, but I figured it was viral and the doc's office is a waste of time for that, so I just waited. Thursday I felt a little better and caught up on stuff some, but Friday morning I felt bad again, so I finally went to the doc. Got some antibiotics and was wiped out pretty much yesterday and not much better this morning, though I feel a little better this afternoon. Stupid antiobiotics smell like paint thinner in a pill... (GAG!)

ANYHOW, I FINALLY got back to work on the Saturn V this afternoon. I did the "detail location wrap" for the S-IC first stage using details from Apollo Maniacs.com among other places, and the Saturn V blueprints I got off NARTS years ago. The S-IC is actually the least difficult to detail of all the stages.

Anyway, here's the wrap for the BT-80 first stage and some of the resource pics I grabbed off the net to help... all the "Position numbers" line up along the reference line on all three detail position wraps, though one might want to actually change which "Position number" aligns with the reference line, so all the wrap overlaps are joints are on the "back" of the rocket away from the launch pad, if one is planning to launch off a Saturn tower...

Here's the Apollomaniacs pics...

Later! OL JR

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok... back to the drawing board...

Interesting topic of conversation over on the nasaspaceflight.com/forums came up about "what if Apollo had continued..." In part of the discussion, it came to replacing Saturn IB's "cluster's last stand" first stage powered by eight H-1 engines with "something else".

At one point the 260 inch monolithic SRM being developed and tested by Aerojet was proposed, but the thing was SO massively heavy it was going to require an ENTIRELY new integration and stacking design at KSC to make it work, and that wasn't in the cards. As it was, only the half-length motor was ever built and test fired before the project was canceled.

The subject came up about LIQUID replacements for the S-IB stage... interestingly enough they'd been proposed but of course never developed, due to the fact that, being a first stage, weight and ISP inefficiencies don't hurt performance anywhere NEAR as much as they do on upper stages, where weight and ISP is critical to performance. S-IB was actually somewhat of a weight savings over the earlier Saturn I first stage it replaced, though of course the basics of the design in using multiple tanks clustered together could NEVER be as efficient as a monolithic fuel tank and monolithic oxidizer tank, even separate bulkhead tanks like the Saturn V S-IC stage used. But, you have to save about 11 pounds of weight on the first stage to increase payload by 1 pound, unlike on upper stages where it's much closer to 1 pound weight saved equals 1 pound of extra payload (this is especially true of escape stages leaving earth for the moon or elsewhere). SO it was judged not worth the expense to develop a replacement.

Now, in an alternate universe, which the thread presupposed, where shuttle was deemed 'a bridge too far' and was rejected in 1972 instead of being approved and all Saturn hardware and capabilities ultimately scrapped, the opposite decision is taken to "build upon what we have" (much like the Russians did incidentally) and so a program was initiated to evolve Saturn into something more affordable and sustainable-- cheaper to build, cheaper to integrate, and cheaper to fly. Obviously in this paradigm, you have to streamline production and reduce programs where possible-- engine programs, stage programs, etc all soak up funds and make the overall program more expensive, so being able to eliminate the H-1 engine, and the S-IB first stage would have been highly desirable. Replicating it's performance and capabilities (and actually improving upon them) would have been nice side-benefits, especially if it could be done with the existing F-1/F-1A engines and structures similar to that in use on the S-IC Saturn V first stage, and using the existing S-IVB stage, which would surely have switched to the J-2S engine at that time.

Now, Improvements to Saturn V had been proposed including using up to FOUR strap-on liquid rocket booster pods (LRB's) to supplement the Saturn V first stage thrust. There were similar proposals using SRB's of various type and designs (from 120 inch SRB's from Titan III, to 156 inch "notional" SRM's (which eventually became the SRB's I suppose) to even mammoth 260 inch monolithic SRM's by Aerojet). Basically ALL the proposals for Saturn V boosters ignored or glossed over various important constraints on the KSC infrastructure, such as the fact that the acoustics (noise) from the ignition and liftoff of THIRTEEN F-1 engines AT ONCE from a Saturn V (5 F-1's) with FOUR LRB's (2 F-1's EACH) would have broken every window in the eastern half of the state of Florida...

Now, there were proposals to use this dual F-1 booster as a first stage replacement. Someone pointed out on the NSF thread that this wasn't particularly feasible-- the thrust from TWO F-1's was ENTIRELY too much for a Saturn IB type vehicle (unless it was ONLY launching massive payloads instead of crews, which would have required a BIG redesign of the S-IVB most likely). The EIGHT H-1 engines of the S-IB first stage produced 205,000 lbs thrust each (in their last upgrade) for a total of 1,640,000 lbs, a little more than the 1.5 million pound thrust of the stock F-1. Two F-1's on the first stage of a Saturn IB type vehicle would produce around 3 million pounds of thrust, about DOUBLE the Saturn IB first stage! Talk about "blink and you miss it!" The gee loads on a crew would have been unedurable! A single F-1A would have produced 1.7 million pounds thrust at liftoff and would have been a suitable replacement for the cluster of H-1's. Assuming you desired to keep the initial liftoff thrust/weight about the same, and simplified the control of the vehicle at the same time, using a standard F-1 on the first stage augmented by a PAIR of H-1's mounted on either side in the outboard positions (to provide roll control and augment thrust) would have increased the liftoff thrust substantially (to nearly 2 million pounds) allowing for heavier payloads without overaccelerating the stack (would probably have required shutdown of the outer 2 H-1's before burnout, just as the inner four H-1's shut down early on S-IB and the central F-1 shut down early on S-IC.) Weight savings by switching to monolithic tanks on the stage similar to S-IC and powering the stack by a single F-1/F-1A and implementing a pair of roll-control verniers or other methods would have probably been preferable, ESPECIALLY for a crew launch vehicle! In addition, this S-IB stage replacement could have produced a SINGLE F-1/F-1A booster for use with Saturn V-- a pair of which would have provided SEVEN F-1's thrusting at liftoff-- surely all the "boost" a Saturn V would ever have needed!

SO-- the "Saturn I-F", which I've faithfully copied from the EXISTING NASA STUDIES OF THE TIME, is basically over-powered and unrealistic. A SINGLE F-1 booster is MUCH more likely, ESPECIALLY if using the substantially higher-thrust F-1A engine! Such a booster would have had a realistic (if perhaps unaffordable or unnecessary, if no large payloads needing it were funded) performance for a booster for Saturn V, if needed, and would have had double duty as a crew launch vehicle first stage.

Such a single F-1/A first stage/S-IVB second stage crew launcher would basically have given NASA the safety benefits touted for the Ares I "Stick" crew launcher (two stage launcher, single engine on each stage) without the problematic issues such as motor buzz and the impossibility of shutting down an errant SRM first stage, and trying to do an abort off an exploding SRB "unzipped" by range safety in the event of an abort, which would have filled the sky with burning chunks of APCP. A single F-1/A booster would have had the same benefits of a single engine on the first stage, coupled with a single engine on the second stage, with one staging event, and the added benefit of being able to simply turn off the F-1 in the event of an abort.


SO, back to the drawing board... I'll have to replace the twin F-1 first stage on the "1-F" with a single F-1 version... no problem as I can build a twin of it for a pair of LRB's for the BT-80 Saturn V (which would have had NINE F-1's thrusting at liftoff, STILL too much IMHO, but if you deleted the center engine on the S-IC itself and capped it off, you'd have had a more manageable EIGHT F-1's with the twin-F-1 boosters on either side... (which would likely be more efficient anyway as it would allow the S-IC to burn longer with the same fuel load, with only 4 F-1's guzzling the fuel instead of 5...)

Later! OL JR

Here is my Saturn IF (a Saturn 1B with a single F-1 and no clustered tanks).

I don;'t know that I agree with the other comments about the two engine version. After all, they were going to put a Gemini on top of a Titan IIIM with 2.2 Million pounds of thrust and liquids were smoother than solids.

I have also inlcuded my 1/144 version of the Saturn 2F1 (Saturn I with 2 F-1s in the first stage) and a mock up of a parrallel staged version (which I call Saturn 2F1(C) after the Titan IIIC).

The Saturn IF booster first stage is the length of the SIB booster, while the Saturn 2F1 is the length of an SIC.

enjoy.

Mike

That's pretty sweet looking, Mike...

In fact your "1-F" immediately sprang to mind when I started reading that thread... I was like "so THAT'S why he went with one F-1!"

It makes sense... doubling the first stage thrust means that to keep the gee loads the same, you have to carry a LOT of payload with you or deeply throttle the engines. F-1's didn't throttle (much if at all given they shut the center one down on Saturn V before stage burnout to keep the gees down when the S-IC was running on empty and getting "very light".) and you wouldn't want to launch a full "lunar stack" to LEO on every S-IF flight of course... It'd be a good payload lifter, no doubt, but for a crew ferry... I dunno... Guess you could put a big water tank in the SLA to keep the gees manageable... LOL:) Shutting one F-1 down in a small asymmetric cluster wouldn't work (technically it COULD, but it would be HIGHLY undesirable with only two engines) There's a certain beauty to the simplicity of the single F-1/single J-2S lifter anyway-- it's a "natural" solution (which the "stick" tried to emulate but ungainly and awkwardly with that SRB first stage and all the problems it brings).

Point taken about the Gemini on Titan III (MOL) but it sorta makes me wonder now just how realistic that was... I know they flew the boilerplate MOL and Gemini capsule retooled with the heat shield hatch, but what were the gees during SRM burn I wonder??

Quick question Mike-- on your 1-F, it's difficult to see the fins-- did you use "I-B" fins on yours or "something else"?? I know yours is a static model and not a flying one, but I'm curious as to your choice and rationale... A single F-1 eliminates the need for the fairings, which really frees one up on fin choices... I'm currently debating between using the 8 Saturn IB swept fins or modified Saturn V fins or even going back to Saturn I Block II fins, since this is a flight model and MUST have fins. The two engine version with the fairings presents quite a quandary in the fins dept. since the prototype "LRB pods" didn't have them, obviously, but a flying rocket needs them-- requiring either to go with "plug in" supplementary (clear or otherwise) fins or, when using it as a first stage, choosing some likely "candidate fins" to put on the stage. Clearly Saturn V fins would be the ones of choice on the fairings, but then that leaves *what* for the opposing fins-- "Saturn I Block II-ish" located directly opposite the fairings and centered between them (clean aerodynamically) or two or even three "Saturn IB-ish" fins located between the fairings on the main body tube between the fairings (complicated aerodynamics due to the tapered fairings). Just curious as to your thoughts on the subject...

The three-body "LRB pod" design is quite interesting... I've thought about something quite similar in relation to a story idea I've had about the aftermath of a nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis... Saturn V never happens, obviously, but 10 years later a new President decides to ultimately finish what we started, in a smaller, cheaper way, of course... F-1 existed (more or less) and they dust off the old plans and suddenly Saturn C-3 looks just about perfect, especially if it uses a new design principle that someone just invented-- the 3-body booster, which they're currently using to launch small space stations using three Titan II first stages strapped together topped by an enlarged second stage (6 LR-87's lifting a twin Centaur upper stage-- sort of a Titan III but using common cores instead of the SRM's.) Scaling it up to use three cores with 2 F-1's each, giving six F-1's thrusting at liftoff, with a lengthened S-IVB second stage with four J-2's, lifting either a standard S-IVB or an RL-10 powered S-IV stage (or both) would provide a substantial capability *on the cheap*. (I'm predicating that dusting off the plans and making Saturn V is deemed "too expensive" after the deep Depression that follows the nuclear war in 1962; the whole program is envisioned as not only an inspiration to the nation and announcement to the world that "we're back" but also a sort of latter day CCC program to help reinvigorate a stagnated and lackluster technical/aerospace economy and the economy in general with "spinoffs"...)

Anyway, thanks for the pics... You don't have a bigger one of your 1-F do you?? :D I just like the looks of that rocket!

Later! OL JR :)

Its gone through several paint jobs since I took that picture. Right now it has no fins, but it orignially in had 4 Saturn IB fins. I think Little Joe II fins might look ok on a flying version, and if they scaled okay, it might look pretty cool with 4, or maybe 6.

I have the whole F-1 exposed in the version I made, I think it might have looked better with some of it recessed into the body so that no so much of it is exposed.

Actually, some of the stuff you wrote about the Saturn C3 is what made me build the 2F1. The Apollo was short fueled for launch on Saturn IBs - it only had about 1/2 of the propellent load a CSM would carry atop a Saturn V, so that actually made me think that my 1F was not much of an advance. The 2F1 would/could carry a sizeable logistics module or orbital lab module to LEO and that would probably keep the G Load down.

Interesting thought about the Titan III made with all Titan II cores. Of course, that immediately made me think of a Saturn IF with 2 Titan II cores on it. And there was a concept to have the Titan II SLV use up to 8 Castor SRMS, like a Delta II.

I'll take a larger photo of the Saturn 1F and have it next to the Saturn 2F1 so you can compare them.

Mike

Here is a larger photo of the Saturn 1F and a comparison shot of the Saturn IF and Saturn 2F1

Thanks for the pics mike! Those are nice builds.

I see your point about the single F-1 versus the double. The single would work and be somewhat of an upgrade, IF they'd used the F-1A with the 1.7 million pounds liftoff thrust, 2 million vacuum. That should buy you some pretty decent cargo capacity having an extra couple hundred thousand pounds of liftoff thrust. The other possibility that leaps to mind is keeping a PAIR of H-1's on the core with the regular F-1, which would actually get you a bit more payload, as it'd be up near 2 million pounds liftoff thrust. It also greatly simplifies roll control on the vehicle. It might also provide some interesting performance figures, as surely you'd have to shut down some of the engine(s) early... either shut down the two H-1's and continue on the F-1 for a bit until burnout, or shut the F-1 down and continue for quite a bit on the two H-1's... that would ensure roll control of the vehicle, and though it's suboptimal having to keep dragging the weight of the F-1 along, it'd almost be like a 'stage and a half' type vehicle. The H-1 and J-2 were roughly in the same ballpark for thrust, though of course H-1's ISP was much lower, being a kerolox engine versus a hydrogen powered engine like J-2. But shutting the F-1 down after say around 150-200 seconds of flight and continuing for another minute to about 100 seconds on the twin H-1's would really stretch the remaining fuel in the first stage, and at roughly double the thrust of the lone J-2 in the S-IVB above, it shouldn't really be underthrusted-- almost act like a second stage in between the first stage and the S-IVB! Once the thing reached propellant depletion, the H-1's are shut down, the first stage jettisoned, the J-2 on the S-IVB fired up, and the interstage jettisoned and off ya go.

Of course the twin F-1 could accomplish much the same thing with two engines instead of three. But it also couldn't be throttled, and the gees would get pretty nasty toward the end of first stage burn unless you shut one down and slewed the other one enough to thrust through the centerline, and just take the hit from the off-center thrust. Shuttle did it (off-center thrust) so it's certainly possible. It just seems a bit of a waste though, and IMHO now that I think about it, I have to wonder WHAT some of those guys were smokin', proposing FOUR twin-F-1 boosters on a Saturn V, with 13 F-1's firing at liftoff... I mean, come on... TWO boosters STILL gives you NINE F-1's at liftoff, more than the Nova C-8! Did they ever think SERIOUSLY they'd need THAT much boost!!!??? I'd love to see the acoustics maps for that monster-- geez... and if one ever blew up on the pad-- it'd take out everything east of Kissimmee! LOL:) That's why it's REALLY surprising nobody just took a quick 'back of the envelope look and say "Ya know, a pair of SINGLE F-1 (A?) boosters on either side of a Saturn V gives you SEVEN F-1's at liftoff... that's gotta be pretty much enough. Four just seems superfluous. It'd also give you a pretty good first stage.

If you wanted to use the Apollo CSM on a Saturn 1 type vehicle, ie full SPS fuel load, then yeah you're right; you'd need the twin F-1 version, the single F-1 version, or the F-1/twin H-1 version. (Speaking of which, there's nothing saying it HAD to be H-1's flanking the F-1-- perhaps a kerosene LR-87 would have been better-- should have been plenty of them around after Titan I was retired! For that matter, grab all those old Titan I kerosene-fueled first stages and use them as strap-on boosters-- for Titan II Heavy, or heck bolt them to the side of the Saturn 1-F... :D Shame to let em go to waste!) You can do a lot of interesting stuff with a 2 million pound + liftoff thrust vehicle and a full CSM... especially if you have the room/performance to carry some payload along with you (small hab module for extended missions like to L2 or geosynch orbit, cargo module for space station resupply, experiments platform, space station modules, etc...)

Yeah, I've seen the Titan II with Delta boosters-- got a pic of it I grabbed off NSF in one of the threads or other... I've also got a picture of the FOUR engine Titan II-- FOUR LR-87's instead of the usual two-- I think they called it "Barbarian"... I've even got a graphic of it with a pair of Titan III SRM's flanking it... now that would have been a beast!

SO, I guess that either of the variants, single or dual F-1's would have been equally viable or likely if they'd ever gone beyond the 'what if' stage... The 2 H-1's/1 F-1 version is kinda neat, and might have some interesting performance advantages (or might not, I don't have the know-how to really tell) but the biggest disadvantage is the two seperate engine types-- using H-1 forces you to keep them around, and if you have to use 2, might as well use 8 and leave the F-1's for Saturn V... so probably zero chance it would have ever happened even if it DID have good performance...

I like the paint pattern on your single F-1 version-- the thrust structure roll pattern is very "Jupiter missile-ish" LOL:) I can see the logic of using Saturn IB fins on it, but personally I think the Saturn I Block II clipped delta fins look a lot better, using four of them instead of the 8 on the IB. Still, the 8 have character and add a bit of 'continuity' to the look of the thing... like more of an evolution of the IB, whereas the SI/BII fins might make it look like more of a throwback...

Later! OL JR :)

OK, by mentioning Barbarian, you make me have to show my Titan IVL4, topped by an Apollo CSM. The core is a 1in pipe with 4 first stage Engines from Glenn's Titan III/IV. The SRBS are obviously Titan IV SRBS, also from Glenn. In fact, it is all Glenn's stuff, except for the piple.

I used to think that they lit off all 4 solids at once, but there is a concept - called Titan 3D - that was studied, where they fired the first two, then as the first pair neared burnout, the fired the 2nd pair, and only after than, did they ignite the pair. I posted pictures of it from up-ship.com

Hope you like this version. It would make a neat flying model, if you could pull off parrallel ignition on the pad, discard the first pair, air ignite the 2nd, and then light the core. Thered be boosters and parachutes all over the sky!

Mike

Those are sweet!

Gee... I dunno... that'd have to be ONE MIGHTY STRONG CORE to take the thrust of two SRM's on either side, and use it to drag a couple of several hundred thousand pound SRM's UNLIT along at significant gee loads until the first pair burned out... Geez, the structural loads on that one makes my head hurt and I'm just visualizing it! Interesting idea but seems pretty impractical. Sorta like SRB-X on steroids... LOL:)

Airstarts in model rocketry aren't that difficult-- usually done by timer. Jettisonable boosters are doable too-- by several different methods... It would be a neat looking flight...

What's "Glenn's stuff"?? Later! OL JR :)

Glenn = realspacemodels.com

Ah, ok...

Got a quick question-- what are the cylindrical appendages and small finlike things on the back of the boosters on the 4 SRM Titan IV with the Apollo on top?? I haven't seen that before.

Later! OL JR :)

On Titan III's and IVA's, those were the small red cylinders that you see most Titan III, sometimes the are white. The contain the steering fluid (hydrazine I think) for the SRBs. On the Titan IVB, they did away those in favor of the dual cylinders you see.

Ah, ok... should have thought of that... I knew about the big red or white "torpedo" tanks on the side of the boosters for steering fluid on Titan III, didn't realize they changed it on Titan IV...

Later! OL JR :)

Ok... FINALLY getting back to work on the Saturn V...

After drawing all the detail locations on the main stage tubes using the wraps I previously made, now I turn my attentions to the nosecones and transitions that represent the Apollo capsules and SLA panel assemblies.

I'd already hardened them with ultra-thin pink bottle CA from Hobby Lobby a couple weeks or so ago. So, I took the 220 grit to them and sanded them down smooth. This eliminates the "grit" that the CA raises (balsa hairs and hardened dust) and gets them smooth enough for filler.

Now's the time to mask off the cone shoulders-- makes things a lot easier later on...

This time I tried something new-- ultra-lightweight spackle from Ace Hardware. I've used it before filling gaps on my nephew's 4H rockets (well, showing him how to do it) and it worked ok. I tried a new method this time. I wet a small paintbrush by dipping it in a bowl of water, knocking off the excess water, and brushing the top of the spackle to moisten it and mix in the water, and transferring it onto the brush. Then I brushed the thinned spackle onto the cones. I noticed that it doesn't go on quite as nice as the thinned Elmer's Carpenter's Wood Filler that I usually use, but it went on "ok"... sorta like cake icing... then I set them aside to dry.

Next I hit them with 220 grit sandpaper again to take the filler down to the level of the wood. It sands pretty good, but not as well as thinned CWF (carpenter's wood filler). Once I had the cones sanded down, I taped them to cardboard "handles" for priming...

Moved out onto the porch and gave them a couple or three good coats of primer. Now they're drying...

Later! OL JR

With the cones primered and drying, I'm shifting gears to start some detailing...

First off is the S-II stage liquid hydrogen line fairings. There were five of these, four of which are evenly spaced between positions I, II, III, and IIII, with the fifth slightly off-center in Position II. The line fairings are right at 24 inches in diameter on the real vehicle. I bought two packages of different size bamboo skewers awhile back. The larger ones are about 0.156 in diameter, which at 1/152 scale, is just about 24 scale inches in diameter... PERFECT!

SO, referring to my handy NARTS Saturn V blueprints, I scaled out the size of the fairings, since they taper to an off-center cone on each end. They're actually a rather complex shape, as they actually have another "mini-fairing" on the left hand side of the individual fairings, but I'm going to just make them cylindrical and call it good. First we have to sand the bamboo skewer down smooth, as they are quite rough from the package.

Next, we need a 'reference line' the length of the skewer. I put two rulers on top of each other and traced the line onto the skewer, sorta like a miniature "door jamb" method. This is so we can get BOTH the off-center points in the same "plane" on the fairing. The pencil line isn't particularly durable on the bamboo, so I traced over it with Sharpie marker...


Next, I drew a scale representation of the fairing lengths on the edge of one of my worksheets... the fwd. tapered end is 0.461 inches at 1:152 scale, the center 'cylindrical' section is 1.033 inches, and the aft taper is 0.421 inch. Now I can handily transfer the measurements to the bamboo as I build each one...

Rolling it back and forth with the pencil inscribes "guide rings" on the bamboo for the tapers. I quickly learned to go over them with magic marker just to make the marks more durable. Also, put an arrow denoting "fwd" on the thing since the tapers are different lengths.

Next, using the hobby knife, whittle the bamboo down to the desired off-center conical shape. The point of the cone should be on the reference line and flat against the side of the fairing. I tried simply sanding them to shape, but the bamboo is HARD and doesn't sand easily-- whittling reduces about 80% of the work of making the tapered ends...

More to come! OL JR

Next we sand the conical end down smooth. This is most easily done with a piece of 220 grit sandpaper held tightly down on the table, and sanding the pointed end while gently rolling it back and forth, accounting for the off-center point.

Bamboo will sand down to a needle-like point, so periodically round this off a bit to avoid skewering yourself (or the sandpaper). A few passes over/around the tip will take it down nicely. It doesn't take too long to make the tip quite smooth and properly shaped...

Next we'll cut the bamboo to the proper length for the fairing... roll the bamboo a few times with the hobby knife blade to cut the outside grain of the bamboo-- this will make for a cleaner cut. You CAN cut all the way through it by rolling back and forth repeatedly under pressure, but the hardness of the bamboo makes this a LOT of work and takes a long time. We just need to cut the outer grain a bit so the bamboo doesn't 'split' when we cut it.

It goes a LOT faster cutting it with a razor saw, after you've cut through the outer layer a bit to prevent splitting... bamboo is hard and it takes a bit to cut through it.

Once you're finished cutting it off, true the end up a bit on the paper and you're ready to start carving the other end of the fairing...

Later! OL JR

Using the hobby knife, whittle the other end down to the proper contour...

Once you've got the basic shape, we'll refine it by sanding to smooth everything out...

Roll it as you sand it, and be sure you change the angle as you roll it to account for the off-center tip...

Once you're finished sanding, it should be just about perfectly shaped...

Later! OL JR

Once you have the first one, ensure that it's the right size and shape, and trim it to fit the model. I find that the step up where it goes over the corrugated paper leaves an ugly and weak gap under the fairing where it attaches to the tube. So I trimmed and sanded a 'step' into the back part of it to lay flat on both the corrugated paper and the tube.

When you start doing the others, compare them all to the first one and make sure they all match for size, shape, and length.

Transfer the marks from the "step" in the first one to the second and subsequent fairings... that way they all sit the same on the tube fore/aft.

Using a rocking motion with the hobby knife, cut into the fairing a bit to make a clean cut up to the "step".

Shave the fairing underside down on the back part of the fairing, that will sit on top of the corrugated paper. This will allow for the additional thickness of the corrugated paper on the tube.

The hobby knife can only do so much-- the bamboo tends to carve "by the grain" and leave a slightly irregular surface. A few passes with a hobby file will take it down smooth as silk and ensure it's level all the way from the aft tip to the step...

Later! OL JR

Next we need to flatten the front half a little bit, so it sits flat on the tube instead of rocking and rolling when we try to glue it down-- this will make for a stronger joint that will look better, since the fairings are not actually cylindrical but a "rounded box" shape merely to cover the liquid hydrogen lines where they come out of the periphery of the LH2 tank and "go around the outside" of the liquid oxygen tank underneath it, before the lines disappear back into the stage along the thrust structure to the J-2 engines.

A little touch-up sanding ensures a good tight fit. We don't want to sand down anywhere near as much as on the step side, just enough to keep the fairings flat and level when glued on the rocket.

Test fitting ensures a good, gap free joint.

Once all five fairings have been finished, line them up and make sure they're all the same length, as close as possible anyway. Pick three that are as close as possible to each other and use them on Position II, where the three fairings in close proximity to each other will make any differences particularly noticeable. The "oddballs" can go on the other side of the rocket where they're "by their lonesome"...

On photos of the real S-II stage, you can see that there is actually some tapered insulation that sticks up above the surface of the stage, onto which the fairings are mounted. There is also a "ring" of this smooth insulation just above the corrugated aft skirt of the stage, and each fairing also has a smaller block of this tapered insulation on the right side of the fairing (for some sort of mini-fairing/bump). The center fairing on position II also has a pretty good sized block of tapered insulation on the left hand side of it, on the position II centerline, for a LOX or LH2 umbilical or vent connection. I cut printer paper to size with a hobby knife and straightedge and glued it in the proper locations on the stage where the fairings will go. This will give a slight "3-D" effect to show where the tapered insulation actually is on the stage when painted (I hope). It looks a little rough now but it'll look a lot better painted (as will the fairings). (no, they're not curved-- it's the camera's perspective...)

Later! OL JR

LH2 fairings all installed on the S-II... haven't filleted them yet. Probably just a touch of Titebond Moulding and Trim Glue should be all that's needed.

Here's the pics... enjoy!

Next back to finishing the balsa cones/transitions...

later! OL JR