CFE - 13/7/2007 1:13 AMIn looking at the Saturn I (Block I&II) and Saturn IB, it makes me question the multi-tank design of the first stage. I can only assume that the Redstone & Jupiter tanking had to be reused (instead of single kerosene & LOX tanks of larger diameter) because the tooling to build wider stages didn't exist at the time. But the wider tooling would be developed for the aft skirt, as well as the S-IV and S-IVB stages. In the end, did the Saturn I/IB series save any money or schedule by going with the clustered first stage tanks?
simonbp - 13/7/2007 11:07 PMA similar story, really, as to why the R-7/Soyuz has four strap-ons...Simon
Danny Dot - 14/7/2007 11:03 AMQuotesimonbp - 13/7/2007 11:07 PMA similar story, really, as to why the R-7/Soyuz has four strap-ons...Simon Wasn't it the R-7 that launched Sputnik?Danny Degerhttp://www.dannydeger.net
CFE - 12/7/2007 12:13 AMIn the end, did the Saturn I/IB series save any money or schedule by going with the clustered first stage tanks?
edkyle99 - 14/7/2007 1:20 PMSome more thoughts about your final question, which is hard to answer because Saturn's history ended up being determined more by politics than by its engineering. If it had not been shelved, and if it had not been limited by its assignment to NASA, a modernized Saturn I might be flying today as often as Russia's Proton. NASA wouldn't be developing an Ares I launch vehicle, because it would already have had a heavy cluster booster able to do the job. - Ed Kyle
edkyle99 - 13/7/2007 11:02 PMsnip.... Saturn I/IB probably cost more to fly in cluster form than it would have cost if built with a single, fat tank. But in the end only 24 flight stages were built and only 19 flew, so the low numbers had a greater impact on per-flight costs than tank design details. ...snip - Ed Kyle
EE Scott - 15/7/2007 7:39 PMQuoteedkyle99 - 13/7/2007 11:02 PMsnip.... Saturn I/IB probably cost more to fly in cluster form than it would have cost if built with a single, fat tank. But in the end only 24 flight stages were built and only 19 flew, so the low numbers had a greater impact on per-flight costs than tank design details. ...snip - Ed KyleWhen did the Saturn I first stage end production? I read that many first stages were put away in long-term storage for possible later use. The only later use I remember was for the Apollo-Soyuz test project in 1975. I am curious how old that Saturn first stage was that boosted the final Apollo flight in '75, i.e., how many years was it in storage?
mike robel - 15/7/2007 4:30 PMGreat document meiza. Thanks.The Saturn C-2 always looked a bit ungainly to me, but the C-3 is a nice looking beast.At least the RL-10 engine is still in service, even though nothing else from Saturn Development is, although the J-2 will be reinvented.I would have been nice to have seen a Saturn 1-F, my designation for a Saturn 1 with a single F-1 in a non-clustered 1st stage. IT would have lent itself to strap ons for the Saturn V as well.
mike robel - 15/7/2007 3:30 PMAt least the RL-10 engine is still in service, even though nothing else from Saturn Development is, although the J-2 will be reinvented.
CFE - 16/7/2007 1:59 AM My sense is that, had NASA and the Air Force agreed to down-select between the two boosters, the Saturn IB would have been the cheaper choice. After all, it only had two stages, and it avoided all the hazmat concerns that accompany solid and storable liquid propellants. At the same time, Saturn IB had excess performance for the Air Force's needs at the time.