Saturn Upgrade

[Rick James]

I just saw the October 2004 issue of Popular Mechanics... there was an article in there about returning to the moon to mine Helium 3.

One part of the article talked about the launch vehicles needed to get the materials required for a mining operation to the moon. It said there were designs for an upgraded Saturn that could do the job.

Anybody seen these designs? Or is it all just blue sky for now?

Just wondering,
Rick

 

[JStarStar]

Check it out... https://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/saturnv.htm

Still only blue skies for now, but the blueprints still exist... if we really wanted to, we could have Saturn V's back in the air by 2007...

 

[Chilly]

I find that hard to believe, although I'd love to see it fly again. I don't think they kept any of the tooling. And we're talking 40-year-old technology now. They could probably find ways to make it lighter (thus more payload into orbit), but that would create effects "downstream" on the design as well. Who knows how it would end up?

No doubt there'll probably be a need for a new heavy-lifter, but I'd take anything PopMech or PopSci says about the space program with a very large grain of salt.

 

[illini]

Every idea under the sun is coming out of the woodwork these days. Even saw yesterday an idea to use the Shuttle SRB as the booster with an upperstage on which you would mount the CEV. Obviously, Thiokol is pushing for this one.

 

[Chilly]

Gee, ya think??? I would love to be a fly on the wall in "big aerospace" sometimes.

I see SpaceDev is developing their own answer to CEV, reviving the X-37 design NASA cancelled. Apparently they're getting funding from Ames.

Interesting times ahead...

 

[illini]

Originally posted by Chilly
Gee, ya think??? I would love to be a fly on the wall in "big aerospace" sometimes.

[Gomer Pyle voice here:] Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!

Here's the article on the SRB approach: https://www.thespacereview.com/article/226/1

Regarding being a fly on the wall in big aerospace...I think it would only serve to shake your confidence beyond repair! Keep in mind that NASA's top priority is the preservation of NASA, and the top priority of the guys providing the funding is to get re-elected. Once you focus everything through that lens, I don't have a lot of confidence that the best ideas will necessarily win out.

 

[cls]

some neat ideas coming out, sure, but none of 'em make my heart go THUMP THUMP THUMP like those stupendously awesome uprated Saturns!!!

 

[JStarStar]

Originally posted by Chilly
I find that hard to believe, although I'd love to see it fly again. I don't think they kept any of the tooling. And we're talking 40-year-old technology now.

Of course, I'm not in any position to really know, I suspect they haven't kept any substantial pieces of the tooling, but remember, when they built it the FIRST time in the 1960s, they pretty much built it from scratch in about five years. (Final configuration design late 1961, launch early 1967) If we could do it in five years then, we could do it faster now.

While the tooling is gone, the diagrams, blueprints, etc. aren't. I'd be very confident, if there were a real incentive to do so, we could have a Saturn 5B flying by about 2007-08. (Of course there would be technological improvements and efficiency and performance would be better, but obviously the basic design works - we know it does.)

Heck, the Atlas (close to 50-year-old technology) and Titan (40+ year-old technology) are still playing key roles in the U.S. space program.

The Russians are still using the basic R-7 which they used to launch Sputnik, Vostok and all their manned missions, and that's close to 50-year-old technology too. There's something to be said with using a proven design.

 

[wwattles]

First of all, what took NASA 5 years back in the 60's would take 10-15 years today because of the bureaucracy and other governmental issues. Back then we had a national mandate to get a man on the moon by the end of the decade, and all of the defense community was focused on that effort without the backstabbing and infighting that would develop today.

Second, after the end of the Apollo programs, they disbanded the design and control teams, and much of the documentation was never completed. Things that were part of the brain trust vanished because the brains disappeared. It's almost like the movie "Space Cowboys" where they had to bring back the old guys to get an old satellite to work. Same kind of thing, but much much worse.

They'd have to pretty much start up a whole new program to build Saturn V's, should it come to that. I really think that we'd be better off starting off with plans for something like the Russian heavy-lift rocket for the Buran (Energia or something like that), and scaling up on those.

Besides, the Saturn V, while an incredible part of space history, was a terribly inefficient beast. All that rocket to put up a little tiny spacecraft? We can do much better starting from scratch.

WW

 

[dtomko]

I've seen discussion on the Saturn V elsewhere and while the tooling is lost, much data is on obsolete computer formats, and there has been a serious brain drain, if one wanted to build an exact copy of a Saturn V, it could be done. But as has been pointed out, would you want to? You wouldn't want to recreate obsolete technology and so would have to invest in research and design to upgrade. Atlases were upgraded over time, but also pretty much in continuous use, so the assembly lines didn't need to be recreated. But the real issue, sadly, is that without any sources of funding for a return to the Moon or going to Mars, nothing like this is going to happen in the foreseeable future. Just look at the deficit forecasts and imagine trying to sell this. Still, cool ideas for modeling!
DT

 

[DynaSoar]

Originally posted by dtomko
I've seen discussion on the Saturn V elsewhere and while the tooling is lost, much data is on obsolete computer formats, and there has been a serious brain drain, if one wanted to build an exact copy of a Saturn V, it could be done. But as has been pointed out, would you want to? You wouldn't want to recreate obsolete technology and so would have to invest in research and design to upgrade.

A seemingly logical point. However:

1. Define obsolete.

2. Compare that definition with justification for using Thiokol strap-ons on the shuttle and RMS motors in your rockets.

3. What would require more testing and be more likely to result in problems and accidents, starting from known technology and advancing or starting a new technology from scratch? Feel free to use APCP RMS motors vs. hybrids in your response.

4. Which of the above would cost more?

5. Who is proposing entirely new technology be used by cranking out extremely cool "artists' renditions"? Freebie answer: the management of the major contractors who stand to make more money by throwing away what works and starting from scratch, with no more expectation of it getting built than any other project that gets started with big dreams and sucked dry by cost over-runs before becoming some politician's "golden fleece" target for reasons having little to do with actually saving people money.

6. What would Gene and the "steely eyed missile men" do? When engineers ran things we got "Failure is not an option." When management ran things we got "My God, Thiokol, what do you want me to do, wait until April to launch?" Whose project would you strap your butt to? Which group is saying we can use the old technology and which says we can't even recreate it?

7. Compare and contrast the technologies being used by the X-Prize contenders who have any chance of launching before the deadline. When you get to SS1's hybrid, compare the complete flight performance data (see Aviation Week's article) with the GoFast flight, and the reliability of all hybrids presently in use vs. all RMS motors presentrly in use, whether government, private project, or amateur.

Bonus question: Who proposed a 550 metric ton to LEO lifter in 1962 (for as low as $60/kg) using then-present and older technology, had is employer Aerojet investigate it, had a shipyard agree they could build it, had TRW and the Navy agree it could be done, got the project funded, only to have funding cut due to of all things, Viet Nam, and finally convinced the Navy to fund him again 30 years later? Hints: He had every intention of building his own personal launch vehicle and launch himself. His first rocket (liquid fueled) flew on Dec. 1, 1937.

 

[JStarStar]

The key, of course, is having the incentive to do any of this (and in other words, the money).

I don't think the bureaucracy is that much worse now than it was in the 1960s - there was plenty of bureaucracy then. The problem is, there would have to be a decision from the top down to make such an effort a priority to realize. In other words, we could only do it if we actually decided we SHOULD do it.

In terms of technology, I think what you would see would be the large-scale equivalent of what we in model rocketry know as kitbashing - they could take components from other existing vehicles and modify them for use in the redesigned Saturn V.

Composite materials, new construction techniques, weight reduction in many areas, advances in electronics, would all be taken into account in the new design. For instance, the Shuttle main engines are dramatically more efficient in terms of thrust vs. weight than the engines used on the Saturn V. The S-II stages and S-IVB stages could probably be redesigned to use Shuttle engines rather than the old kerosene-LOX engines.

As far as the "inefficiency" of the overall Saturn V design - huge huge vehicle to launch only the tiny Command Module to the moon and back - that's ultimately a function of specific impulse and vehicle structure weight. The majority of the total weight in the Saturn V stack is simply propellant. No matter how you package it, unless we're using a completely different propulsion system with a much greater specific impulse (the long-awaited nuclear propulsion, etc), it's going to take a huge vehicle to get to the moon and back.

Adapting the Energia as a heavy-lift launcher is an idea, as well as creating a US equivalent of the Energia, by simply mounting 4-5 Shuttle engines on the tail of a stretched External Tank to create a heavy-lift booster first stage, on which a number of secondary stages could be adapted.

Given the technological disparity between the US and USSR programs, I'd think adapting Saturn techology for use as heavy-lift launchers would probably be as smart as using Russian Energias. Saturns built in the late 60s were probably as techologically advanced as the Soviet Energias of the late 80s.

 

[wwattles]

We're still talking pure launch vehicles here... whatever happened to the proposal for building a long, upward-ramping rail launcher out in the mountains somewhere to put things into low-earth-orbit, then mount space exploration initiatives from there? The rail technology has already been developed by Lawrence Livermore National Labs (do a google search for "Inductrac").

Yes, it's good to look to proven technology to get our desired results. But it was unproven technology that got us into space and to the moon and back in the first place!

WW

 

[illini]

Some excellent points in the preceding posts. Seriously...excellent! A few thoughts:

Regarding bureaucracy in the '60s: Keep in mind that in the '60s NASA had a well focused mission, was interested in hiring the best people available, and many of the best people wanted to go to work for them. Whether bureaucracy was worse or not, these three factors (and others) seem to have been enough to keep the bureaucracy at bay and allow them to succeed. None of those three factors are relevant to NASA today. By any measure today, they are a bureaucracy.

I personally come down on the side of reliability and cost regardless of the "age" of the technology. You need a core capability of highly reliable systems that do most - if not all - of what you want. Incrementally improve these as new technologies become available. Use more exotic technologies as necessary for specific roles. That being said, the question regarding the Saturns comes down to the cost of recreating the means to produce these vs. the cost of designing a new vehicle and the infrastructure to produce it. I know from my own experience in doing trade studies of this type for DoD that it is often not practical to sustain the capability to manufacture and maintain "old" systems even though they continue to meet operational requirements (same reason NASA scavenges for stuff on e-bay). Sometimes, you actually do have to scrap the old stuff and move on.

Final point: I gotta cringe whenever I hear people mention Thiokol. Its a personal thing. Check my profile to figure out why.

 

[Chilly]

This discussion keeps popping up from time to time, doesn't it? Another good thing to keep in mind is why we built the Saturn V in the first place - we were using lunar orbit rendesvous. There were other options, like using smaller launchers and building the moon ship in earth orbit one module at a time. We didn't have the experience to do that in the 60's but we certainly do now.

 

[Rick James]

I know Popular Mechanics is not a scientific journal but rather falls into the "pop" science genre... but the article I mentioned was written by Harrison Schmitt of Apollo 17 - a geologist.

The main point of the article was a discussion of commercial mining on the moon - Schmitt's primary interest. Rail guns for transporting ore back to Earth was discussed.

His point was that for a return to the moon, it must be commercially viable. Helium 3 is extremely rare on Earth but relatively abundant on the moon. He3 can be used as a fuel in fusion reactors. By his calculations, mining a square mile, 9 inches deep will yield 220 pounds of He3 at a market value of $141 million.

The problem, of course is getting all the mining equipment up there... and again, in the article, he said there were plans to use a Saturn upgrade for the heavy lifting vehicle to the moon.

I don't subscribe to PM - I read it in the barber shop - so the next time you're getting your hair cut - look for it - it was really interesting.